Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Gamergate controversy

My opinions are repeatedly called "fringe" in this discussion. This is not an accusation that should be slung around without sources backing it up. Auerbachkeller (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like you ought to go to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules and policies are often references by acronyms and abbreviations that are either cryptic or, as here, look more alarming than they ought. The questions under discussion is whether -- and how -- your provocative Twitter post [1] can be used in the Gamergate Controversy article. As always, editors must weigh the source, the argument, the publication in which it appears, and its relationship to other reliable sources. One policy that's mentioned here is WP:RS and the question of self-published sources -- the encyclopedia typically considers material that appears in multiple mainstream sources as more reliable than self-published sources, though the latter can be used in some special circumstances. The other policy being discussed is WP:UNDUE -- whether the argument advanced by this source is representative of the consensus of reliable sources -- that is, whether it's "common knowledge" -- or is controversial though widely held, or whether neither is the case. The shorthand for the latter situation is WP:FRINGE and covers a host of things . Believing the earth is flat or that fluoridation is a communist conspiracy is WP:FRINGE, but so is the belief that Huckleberry Finn is a lousy book (pace Jane Smiley) or that the novels of Susan Sontag are overrated (Bull Durham) or any other exceptional opinion. Any striking opinion piece is likely to qualify as WP:FRINGE on publication -- the point of such pieces is to open eyes, after all. It could be worse: my classics training cries out to say that you're making an argument ex silentio, which would be a Bad Thing in Classics Quarterly but, after all, you're not writing for CQ. We can't point to dozens of articles in major newspapers and magazines that agree with the thesis you propound: that’s why you wrote this. The question before the encyclopedia is, which ideas are broadly agreed-upon by lots of sources and which, newly argued here, we must wait upon until a broader community has considered them. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that description of WP:FRINGE is overly expansive, but the point stands that "fringe" is being used as a term of art. Rhoark (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I gather this will not be addressed. Please correct me if I am wrong, or else I will take this feedback as a refusal. Auerbachkeller (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Auerbachkeller: That's a discussion about the validity of your article as a source. Those are the opinions of individual editors and nothing there rises to the level that would require action by administrators. Nor is that talk page seen by 99% of the people who read the article. So I guess the question here is what would you like us to do? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It's true that policy about living persons does apply to article talk pages. At that talk page, it appears the pertinent discussion was primarily among User:Aquillion, User:DHeyward, and User:TheRedPenOfDoom. Are you seeking for any talk page comments to be deleted? You might have more success with such a request if you would first go to the noticeboard that I suggested above, i.e. Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard. Alternatively, if you would like us to change the word "fringe" to something like "non-mainstream" then please say if that would be satisfactory.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: That will not help. The use of WP:FRINGE in that context was incorrect, at least as far as Wikipedia considers the term. "Fringe" in general around here is alternative medicine and sasquatch and UFOs. "Fringe" as used in that discussion I assume means it's not mainstream or reliable or valid enough to include in the article. It's an incorrect application of the definition. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Frog. I pinged the three editors so they can explain how they meant the term. If they used the term incorrectly, perhaps they can agree to replace it with something else.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I've read through the rest of that horrible talk page and I think I understand what's going on. It seems certain sources have been called "fringe" in order to exclude them from the article. Which in my opinion is incorrect, but then that whole article is a true clusterf*ck anyway. Short of removing every comment that invoked WP:FRINGE I'm not sure how we would address this, and quite frankly as it is not clearly something that breaches WP:BLP I don't believe it is actionable. "Fringe" used to be limited to alternative theories about subjects that deviate greatly from the mainstream, but here it is being wielded as a weapon of sorts. Auerbachkeller, I would recommend bringing this to the Administrator's noticeboard where it will get more attention from experienced editors, and perhaps actioned in some way. On the other hand you can simply just ignore what random people on the internet say about you. But that's up to you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Auerbach's self-published source is not fringe. It's basically a followup to his cited work in Salon. An opinion does not become "fringe" simply because it appears in a different source or form. If I say "the Earth is round," it doesn't become FRINGE simply because I wrote it in the notoriously unreliable source known as Wikpedia. In Auerbach's case it is not fringe and it's descrption as fringe is a BLP violation and should be corrected promptly as I originally did. We have no sources identifying his view as FRINGE. --DHeyward (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is not about where an opinion or theory is published; it is about its relative prominence in the field. Auerbach's theories are, at least in my opinion, clearly not prominent -- almost no reliable sources agree with his interpretation of the situation, especially on this particular aspect -- so they fall under WP:FRINGE. Beyond that, as I said below, arguing that the mere assertion that a theory falls under WP:FRINGE is a BLP violation against the person who holds it would render us effectively unable to discuss the relative weight of sources. --Aquillion (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree this is not a BLP vio (because I agree we need to be able to discuss these issues), however I disagree with the application of the term "fringe" in that particular context. But that's neither here nor there. So long as BLP is being observed there's nothing for us to do. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is, as people have explained above, a Wikipedia policy dealing with how to cover theories that are not widely-accepted; it is not meant to be derogatory, merely a comment that your opinion-pieces do not reflect the mainstream coverage of GamerGate among the rest of the press, and therefore shouldn't be given excessive weight. I stand by my opinion that your theories fall under that policy; they are directly at odds with the overwhelming majority of mainstream coverage. More mainstream outlets have, for instance, clearly taken the position that AAA publishers have condemned GamerGate. See eg. LA Times, NPR, PC Gamer, and The Washington Post; on the other hand, I'm not aware of any other reliable sources expressing your opinion that there is a secret well of AAA support. Beyond that, there are several other details of the opinions you express in your twitter that I feel are far out of mainstream coverage or scholarship on the subject, too -- I could provide more details if you want, but I think rehashing the subject's entire debate here isn't really necessary; it's enough to show that my position is at least reasonable, even if you disagree. Your opinion can still be mentioned, but I think it's clear that quoting your opinions on the controversy repeatedly throughout the article (as some people want to do) would be giving undue weight to a view that is not widely held. Now, all this is just my interpretation, and obviously some people disagree -- but that's why we have those talk page discussions in the first place. The important part is that saying that I feel your theories fall under WP:FRINGE is not a insult to you personally, and reading it that way would have chilling effect on our ability to discuss the relative weight of sources, which is a vital component of building a balanced article. --Aquillion (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Whether the views in question are "fringe" or not, that word is commonly defined as something that is marginal, additional, or secondary to some activity process or subject. It is certainly not a compliment, but it's not necessarily a personal insult either. I wish Wikipedia would reserve the word for Sasquatch-UFO type stuff, and use a milder word for more accepted small-minority views, but that's just me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

To me, "fringe" would be someone saying that GG is a conspiracy by the lizard people (albeit one presented very professionally). This is not fringe, nor are most of the sources referred to as fringe in that discussion and the archives. Yet apparently at some point "fringe" became "counter to my views" and no one did anything to prevent it. Just another toxic side effect these articles have on the project. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I object to that; please remember to assume good faith. I can understand your position that WP:FRINGE should be reserved for academic subjects with more clearly-defined standards of publication, but I think that it is still appropriate to use it to describe theories and takes on current events that go against a near-universal consensus among the reporting of mainstream reliable sources, as I believe to be the case here. Either way, my usage is clearly based on my honest belief that Auerbach's views are far out of the mainstream (which I think I have established reasonably well, both here and, at further length, on the talk page for the main article, and which I think is reasonably clear when you compare his take on the controversy to almost any other mainstream source.) I've presented much more coherent arguments than just "counter to my views", and by asserting that that is my reasoning you are implying bad faith on my part. If you feel that reading or application of WP:FRINGE is off, that's fine; if you feel that I'm wrong about Auerbach being out of the mainstream, you're welcome to dispute that on the talk page for the article. But implying, as you have here, that reasons behind my arguments are purely based on disagreement with Auerbach rather than a legitimate belief that his take on this issue is far out of the mainstream (and, I suppose, a legitimate disagreement over how to apply WP:FRINGE) is inappropriate; people with different perspectives on a topic and its coverage can have different views on what opinions are mainstream, what is prominent and what is WP:FRINGE, and so on. Those disagreements are not automatically signs of bad faith. --Aquillion (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Aquillion: My comment was not directed at you, sorry if it seemed that way. It's just a general observation about what goes on in that talk page. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

So you are placing me under this rubric (from WP:FRINGE):

We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support.[3] Other examples include conspiracy theories and esoteric claims about medicine.

• Creation science and Intelligent design – The overwhelming majority of scientists consider this to be pseudoscience and say that it should not be taught in elementary public education. However the very existence of this strong opinion, and vigorous discussion regarding it amongst groups such as scientists, scientific journals, educational institutions, political institutions, and courts of law give the idea itself more than adequate notability to have articles about it on Wikipedia.
• Holocaust denial – Claims of Holocaust deniers – that Adolf Hitler had no genocidal intent against the Jews of Europe, that no gas chambers were used for mass murder at camps such as Auschwitz, that the number of Jews killed by the Nazis was far less than six million – are rejected as false by an overwhelming majority of professional historians, although the Holocaust deniers themselves will still occasionally get some public notice and therefore notability.
• Moon landing conspiracy theories – Conspiracy theories which aim to show that the Moon landings were fake, while probably not held as true by very many people, have generated enough discussion in books, television programs, debunking statements from NASA, etc., that they deserve an article on Wikipedia.
• Paul is dead – a famous urban legend alleging that Paul McCartney of The Beatles died in 1966 and was replaced by a look-alike, sound-alike duplicate named William Campbell. Denied by all four Beatles (including McCartney, who is alive and well as of 2014), this conspiracy theory was fueled by "clues" found among The Beatles' many recordings. The rumour has been the topic of much sociological examination because its development, growth and rebuttal took place very publicly, owing to The Beatles' enormous popularity.

And I take it you are indeed refusing to rescind this claim that I fall under this rubric, nor back it up with sources. Good to know. Again, please correct me if I am wrong. I want to be clear on this point. Auerbachkeller (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

You're misreading that list; it is a list of examples of highly notable fringe theories (which therefore tends towards ones that are particularly bold in their claims.) I am not asserting that your theories fall under that category. But I am indeed asserting that they fall under the general definitions of a WP:FRINGE theory, one that "is not broadly supported by scholarship" or is "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view" in that particular field. I continue to hold the opinion that the theories you advanced in the twitter post in question (which may not, of course, describe your entire thinking on the issue) fall under both the letter and the spirit of our WP:FRINGE guideline in that respect. I believe I have provided sources above showing where the specific claim under contention goes against mainstream coverage, and I feel that going over the sources for the article makes it clear that the overarching position you advance in that twitter post departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view of the controversy. Now, of course, not everyone would agree; but as I said above, I think that it is vital that editors be able to express their honest opinion on the weight due to a source and whether it is WP:FRINGE or, similarly, whether it falls under any number of other policies that an author might interpret as derogatory. Certainly many authors would be as unhappy as you are here if they knew we described their words as 'unreliable' or 'biased', but we must be free to make those assertions, even if people might legitimately disagree, in order to produce a usable encyclopedia. --Aquillion (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC

I think your interpretation is lacking. FRINGE is not about how much it is accepted in reliable sources, it's how much it's rejected. There are many physics theories involving gravitons and strings that are not widely accepted and are not fringe because there is very little opposition but also very little support. Comparatively, fringe theories have direct opposition in mainstream sources. "Flat earth" is widely refuted and is fringe due to its opposition. Auerbach by contrast has no mainstream opposition. That, by definition is not fringe. --DHeyward (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I've decided to hat the discussion because it was going nowhere except bad places. Does that resolve everything?Bosstopher (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Is the resolution that the claim that I am "fringe" as described above is not going to be rescinded? Auerbachkeller (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not saying that you are fringe; my opinion is that the specific theories you advanced in that one particular Twitter post are WP:FRINGE. Fringe-ness, at least under our policy, applies to theories and ideas, not people. You are not fringe, but I feel that your opinion that there is a secret wellspring of support for GamerGate among AAA publishers, specifically, is a fringe theory under our policy. If you feel it's a BLP violation merely to describe a theory you articulated in this manner, I don't know what to say; I feel I've cited several reputable mainstream sources that contradict it, while the only source we have for it is your twitter post (which, even if you turned around and published it in a reputable publication, would still only be one opinion piece from a single person.) In a situation like that, I ultimately don't think it's reasonable to interpret criticism of a theory you've advanced as a BLP violation. --Aquillion (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess I have my answer. All right then. You say that I subscribe to a "theory" that your classification places on a par with Holocaust denial and creation science. You stand by that claim. Understood. Auerbachkeller (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

People may wish to see the items listed at Category:Fringe_theories.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

And with Godwin's Law validated, we are certainly now done with any productive discussion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• I specifically said I didn't feel that that list of examples was a good comparison (since it's a list of fringe theories notable enough to support their own article, which naturally tends towards the incendiary and highly controversal.) I wouldn't compare the theories you advanced in your twitter to those things, no, but if you look at the Fringe Theories category above, they cover a much wider range. Beyond that, though, a theory stating "there is a secret hidden group of people who support this", in the face of reliable coverage of that same group opposing it? That is a fringe theory to me. Similarly (since it has gotten a bit more coverage), the theory that there is this group of indie journalists and vaguely-referenced "allies" who you believe are colluding to manipulate games journalism for the purpose of gaining social influence? That's... not what the overwhelming majority of mainstream sources say, so I'd describe it as pretty fringe; in fact, the article has many sources describing it as a conspiracy theory (though I suppose some of its advocates might describe it as a "conspiracy fact".) See NYmag, CS monitor, Forbes, washington post, Ars Technica and The Guardian, among others. These are sources I'd consider mainstream; who else is there of comparable stature who agrees with you on these things? --Aquillion (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• What is basically being said here is that it is being argued that Auerbach's piece is a minority view that would fall under WP:UNDUE of whether to include or not (weight of all opinions involved), but should not be called as a "fringe theory" as the term in art means a theory that goes against well-established facts, determined by scientific, medical, or legal evaluation. Flat Earth is a fringe theory because of the huge amount of proof the earth is round. But Auerbach's opinion piece on GG cannot be treated a fringe theory because there is no factual assessment of GG to say it is fringe. It is certainly the minority view where undue coverage and weight apply, but we cannot be applying WP:FRINGE to the Gamergate situation. --MASEM (t) 01:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I gave a heads up to the Fringe Noticeboard about this discussion.[2]Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Masem, A fringe theory is not a theory that goes against well-established facts, it is a theory that doesn't (yet) have mainstream acceptance. Fringe theories sometimes turn about to be correct. For example, Germ theory and Continental drift were fringe theories in their day but are now widely accepted. - MrOllie (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• MrOllie that's nonsense. There are many physics theories involving string theory, gravitons, and multi-dimensional space that lack mainstream support. They also lack opposition. Fringe theories are defined by active opposition in mainstream sources, not by lack of mainstream coverage. There is quite a bit a difference between active opposition and a lack of coverage. Lack of coverage is not fringe. Einstein's predictions were not fringe even though it took decades to prove. Same with Hawking radiation and rotating black holes. If no one is willing to refute them, they are not fringe even if they are not widely accepted. That's fundamental scientific inquiry. --DHeyward (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Recapitulating the discussion (which is going nowhere, slowly): Some editors pointed out that Mr. Auerbach's Twitter essay is difficult to use in the encyclopedia because it is a self-published source. Others noted that its core argument, whole interesting, is not widely shared among reliable sources, and placing too much weight on it might be WP:UNDUE. Others point to WP:FRINGE -- which is related to WP:UNDUE, and which concerns a variety of ideas which are held -- sometimes strongly and persistently held -- by small groups but are not broadly accepted. (Another obvious example of a WP:FRINGE argument is the belief that Gamergate concerns ethics in journalism: it could perhaps be true, and Gamergate fans insist it is true, but right now the overwhelming majority of the best sources dismiss it.) MarkBernstein (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor my view is that WP:FRINGE was not the right policy to cite. WP:UNDUE covers the question of how much weight a particular view should be given on a topic page, and WP:RS covers what sources might be cited in presenting a view. There is no disagreement here on policy, just a breakdown of communication between editors where AGF has come unstuck. I would hope that the editors could refocus on the article content; if not, they should go to arbcom.Martinlc (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Jorge Horacio Brito

Hello! I was looking at the biography of Jorge Horacio Brito and in my opinion it looks biased or not neutral and damages the reputation of that living person. I think it would be good if other users can take a look at it, because it seems that it has corruption allegations that have not been brought to a trial yet. At least, this is what I understand from the article, which is mainly sourced with articles from the media. It is known that media provides information about cases of corruption, but they not always finally probed. In fact, I realized that there was a conflict with this article, with a couple of users trying to make the biography more neutral by deleting the references of corruption Special:Diff/664463936/667671889. Is it right to have an article that has such harmful information here? I mean, maybe those charges are true, but should Wikipedia be more cautious in allowing this kind of information? I hope someone can give further details about this because apart from this article, I saw many articles about people, most of them relevant, that not only gives biographical information but also describes charges that still are on trial. Many thanks!--Tuquoquefili (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Look, I have stated before I would be willing to work more on the page and reach a compromise. In fact I will take another look soon. But any admins stopping by should take note of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sherlock4000/Archive .

This may be another attempt by this user to make disruptive edits by abusing accounts. I will note that I had attempted compromises several times before on Brito's page with Sherlock only to have him immediately and flippantly undo any compromise and accuse me and other editors of all sorts of conspiracies. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me DaltonCastle, I believe that another users should give their opinion too, because you've been part of the discussion and the one who have made the editions that in my opinion looka biased and could damage the reputation of the guy. Don't you think that Wikipedia should avoid this kind of information until is fully verified. I mean, verified on a trial. Thanks for your reply and your explanations!--Tuquoquefili (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Im not telling anyone they cant give an opinion. Im just saying its a little suspicious that a user was blocked for disruptive edits and abuse of multiple accounts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sherlock4000/Archive) on Brito's page. And now a new user has arisen, making the same arguments as this now-blocked editor. And I cannot stress enough how I had attempted a compromise that was only reverted again and again. This is all covered in reliable sources, and is notable. I write about political corruption a lot of the time. I will review the page and try to reach a compromise, but I hope we dont resort to disruptive reverts and allegations as seen before. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know that the users have been blocked and I read many articles about Argentinean corruption and I have to say that they have loads of information and have plenty of sources but still, is Wikipedia the place to describe this? What will happen if all the people involved there are not condemned? This kind of articles are damaging their reputation. Maybe those people are likely to be guilty, but I believe we have to be cautious here and keep the articles more neutral. I found the biography of Brito but then I saw a couple of articles that have the same problem that Brito's biography.--Tuquoquefili (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

When its covered in reliable sources and highly notable, then it can be in the page. When reliable news sources report on this kind of thing its not unfounded. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

But the article mentions Wikileaks. Is that a reliable source? In the other hand, I believe that the fact that a content is sourced it doesn't mean that it should be used in Wikipedia, specially if it damages the reputation of a person. The media sometimes have their own interests and involve people in cases of corruption that don't reach a trial. I'm not saying that those people are not guilty, but I think that Wikipedia should be more cautious with this kind of information. Again, I hope more users give their opinion about this. --Tuquoquefili (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikileaks itself as a source, within reference tags <ref>(Citation)</ref> would not be accurate. In the article, direct links Wikileaks are not within the reference tags. Stating that sourced content should not be included in the article is saying we should sugarcoat the subject of the article, leading to something along the lines of systemic bias. Just because Brito has not been proven to have committed this actions does not take away from the fact that he has been accused of them. -- Orduin ^Discuss 17:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Buddy Murphy

Matter is closed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
After some editing issues that have been noted as not disruptive on both sides after being reported as an edit war, it was recommended that this issue be brought here for scrutiny. The issue concerns the use of the this link to prove that Buddy Murphy started his career at the wrestling promotion concerned and to disprove that the WWE Performance Center has not trained him at all. BLP prohibits contentious claims through poor sourcing, and I consider this to be a controversial claim that needs independent verification. It is common AFAIK for a promotion to at best stretch the truth in order to attract new wrestlers to train and work for their promotion. This is the case here. Yet two IP's and GaryColemanFan insist without proof that the source is reliable. The page is presently fully protected to my edit, and I maintain that even without a source that the Performance Centre is correct - based in the assertion that all wrestlers who have developmental deals with WWE and work on the NXT roster (Murphy is one of these wrestlers as I believe is shown on the page and sourced) are training there. As an additional point of proof re controversial claims, I pointed out another controversial claim here which is related in that the same three wrestlers are named and a similar promotion line is used. It isn't exactly the same, but it doesn't need to be - it's still stretching the truth and promotional. The edit war started as I used the right under BLP to remove contentious claims without question (I think that's the wording) and they refused to listen. Some help is needed here and I hope this isn't too long as these reports require. Curse of Fenric (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC) 1 If the WWE Performance Centre is added to Buddy Murphy then by the logic Curse of Fenric is using it needs to be added to all NXT performers, past and present. 2 The 2nd claim CoF is trying to use doesn't mention where the current (as of the link) MCW trainer was at the time he trained the three named individuals, just that he was involved in their training, so if anything strengthens the referenced edit. 194.28.124.53 (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC) The above proves my point. This IP is not paying attention to the real issue - promotions making claims based in promoting their product and not verifiable fact. For the record, if the training done at the Performance Centre is less substantive than elsewhere (as would be the case with those who've trained at Ring of Honor like Owens et al) then it's not appropriate to add it. It is with Buddy. It's there with Emma as well, and I'm sure others. Curse of Fenric (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC) It's a sourced edit, and the only thing you've shown to say it's not a fact is WP:OR ("I know he didn't in real life") [3]. Nowhere have you shown that the PCW site is unreliable, the MCW site (your link) makes no mention of where Carlo Cannon trained them, so it doesn't make the sourced edit wrong. If the Manchester United site said that Nicky Butt was trained by Eric Harrison at Manchester United, then the Newcastle United F.C. just said he was trained by Eric Harrison and makes no mention of Manchester United, does that then make mean that the Manchester United site is unreliable? Of course it doesn't, which is the thing you're trying to claim with your MCW link in regards to the sourced edit. 194.28.124.53 (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC) Oh dear. Now trying to compare an elite level soccer club with a grass roots wrestling promotion to cover for a continuation of missing the point. As far as the onus is concerned, BLP says; The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. This is not me. As I said at the start, there must be proof that the PCW website is reliable for BLP claims. Or get an independent source. Curse of Fenric (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC) I have provided evidence with a reference, something you've failed to do everytime you put the Performance Centre in, and you've failed to prove why the refernce isn't acceptable. Just saying it isn't doesn't cut it, else anyone could say "oh, I think site X is not acceptable" and any article with that in will need it removing. WWE.com is just as "kayfabe" as the PCW, so I suggest you start removing it from any and all WWE wrestlers, past and present. 194.28.124.53 (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC) WWE is under severe mainstream media scrutiny making them draw a strong line between kayfabe and real. Local promotions are under no such scrutiny. I don't have to prove the source is unreliable. You have to prove it's reliable and you are yet to do so preferring to attack my editing. All promotions withOUT mainstream scrutiny are subject to suspicion. This doesn't apply to WWE, TNA, Ring of Honor, New Japan and others who have the scrutiny. No promotion is Australia has it. Training in pro wrestling is highly controversial in Australia with a history of controversial claims. It is very much an ego driven business and without controls in place claims such as this are inherently controversial. It's why Australia hasn't had a major nation wide fed since 1978. Curse of Fenric (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC) A few things here, CoF: (1) BLP is about contentious (i.e. potentially controversial) material. Whether a little-known wrestler was trained here or there is hardly controversial. Invoking BLP to justify edit warring about a trivial detail is an abuse of the policy. (2) You have cited your personal knowledge (WP:OR) to justify your preferred version, essentially asserting WP:OWNership of the article (compounded with your ALL CAPS hidden note ordering other editors not to change your preferred version). (3) The promotion is a reliable source, as the writers are clearly experts in professional wrestling (that is, they are employed as writers in this specific field). (4) Replacing a reference with an unreferenced statement isn't supported by BLP, even if the policy is relevant. (5) Continuing the edit war after being reported to WP:AN3 is bad form, at best. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC) (1) It is controversial and I would hardly call the reigning NXT tag team champion "little-known". (2) I am not relying on OR. That at best is simply my back up to my core point. It is not my preferred version. My preferred version (and everyone else's) would be both with a reliable independent source to confirm the first. That's why I put the note not to remove the Performance Centre. He trains there. We all know it. (3) The promotion is NOT a reliable source and writers are NOT experts! Sheesh you are giving them WAY too much room to spout lies if they want and get away with it. That goes to show that as I said above to the IP, the onus is on you to prove it is reliable. Speculation like that is not proof. (4) As I have said before, contentious sources can be removed without question. That is in BLP and that is what I am doing. The reference is not allowed because it needs independent back up. (5) Darkwind has stated that everyone in his view is acting in good faith so your accusation there is out of line. He recommended that the debate be brought here and that is what I have done. Curse of Fenric (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC) My suggestion to bring the discussion here was intended to have someone outside of the dispute assist in providing a viewpoint about the reliability of the source being used. Since nobody but the participants in the dispute have contributed as of this point, I don't particularly see this discussion as likely to go anywhere useful. That being said, GaryColemanFan (t c), I do want to clear up a few misconceptions you appear to have about WP:BLP. First of all, contentious material means material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged. That has happened in this case, therefore, the location where he trained is, by definiton, contentious or controversial, however you want to phrase it. See WP:BLPSOURCES. In regard to your point #3, the only source I saw being used to support that he was trained by PCW Academy was PCW's own website -- which is a crystal clear violation of WP:BLPSPS: "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." (emphasis mine) In the context of the BLP policy, it is not a reliable source. The last sentence of WP:BLPSOURCES also applies: "When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." My personal opinion is, if you cannot find a reliable, third-party source to support where he was trained as a professional wrestler, then leave the field blank as required by BLP. —Darkwind (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC) I disagree that these are misconceptions. While the source has been challenged, the spirit of the BLP policy is to protect living individuals. Whether people think a little-known (yes, I said it again) minor league professional wrestler trained here or there has no bearing on the individual in question. The material is not controversial, potentially libelous, or even important. With that said, one needs to ask whether the letter of the law (yes, even though it is trivial and unlikely to be challenged, someone has challenged it) or the spirit of the law should be the primary consideration. Further, your dismissal of the PCW website as a self-published source is concerning. This is not a source written by someone creating a website and claiming to be an author. This is a source written by someone who was hired to report on behalf of a company, and whose work goes through an editorial process before being published. Therefore, this writer reporting on a wrestler is clearly not a self published source. Therefore, in the context of the BLP policy, it is an acceptable source. To draw a parallel, the list of Nobel Peace Prize winners uses the Nobel Foundation as its source. The Nobel Foundation obviously wouldn't be considered a self-published source, even though it is writing about its own organization. Likewise, on a much less impressive level, a professional wrestling company writing about its own organization is not a self-published source. If I was to start writing about PCW, I would be a self-published source, as I am not an established expert in the field. Of much greater concern is the fact that CoF has engaged in an edit war, and even continued to the edit war after being informed that he had been reported to 3RR, based on his insistence that his personal knowledge/original research trumps a published source and that he has the right to dictate what is allowed in the article in a clear violation of Wikipedia's ownership policy. Thank you for your reply. However, I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of BLP and your misinterpretation of SPS. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC) @GaryColemanFan: BLP exists in part to protect the self-interest of the subjects of biographies, including how they may feel about particular information in their article. We have no idea how important Adams/Murphy considers the information about where he trained, and thus it is not our place to decide whether or not it should be supported with a high-quality source. If at least one Wikipedia editor considers it contentious, it is at least plausible to assume that the subject of the article might also find it contentious. WP:V and WP:BLP are very clear; all contentious information anywhere on Wikipedia must be supported by a reliable source, but especially on articles relating to living people. Regarding the PCW website, I'm not sure where you are getting information that it is written by a professional writer with editorial control. PCW is not a news organization or publisher with a reputation for fact-checking and/or editorial control. From all that I can see, it's probably written by a webmaster who publishes what he is told to publish. This is a website run by an organization which uses said website to publish information about itself, which makes it, by definition, a primary source. Furthermore, the page people are trying to use as a source is an advertisement/recruitment page trying to convince people to sign up to wrestle by impressing them with the names of supposedly important people who have trained there. That is not a reliable source for information under any circumstances, even if we don't apply BLP here. It is not a news article, it isn't even a blog, and it completely fails WP:RS. —Darkwind (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC) While Blogspot is clearly not a reliable source, this interview suggests that Murphy did initially train at PCW, and was then trained by Carlo Cannon. Claims of Murphy being trained by Cannon are backed up by this site which was originally posted by CoF. I would recommend that we simply list Murphy as being trained by Carlo Cannon, since there seems to be clear evidence for that, and cite the MCW page as a reference. The current listing of "WWE Performance Center" is clearly unsuitable as Murphy/Adams was wrestling for over 5 years before the Performance Center was opened, and the fact that we have sourced content which is being removed simply because someone is claiming that "the source is wrong" is frankly absurd. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC) It's not absurd at all. What is absurd is that you're accepting promotional material designed to attract wrestlers as kosher. That is the core reason why the application of BLP as I said at the start and was confirmed by Darkwind means that you have to get away from both the PCW and the MCW websites. They are suspect as is every other website of little promotions seeking attention and the money of youngsters wanting to be a professional wrestler. Hence the need for a reliable third party independent source - such as the one I just requested to be added to the article to back the WWE Performance Centre (even though I didn't need to because there is no controversy over it unlike this PCW stuff). That at least is reliably sourced. The blank in the previous years is caused by the simple fact that no one can come up with a source that fulfills the requirements of BLP. And I know this - a reliable source will get it right and it will say that he did not start training with PCW. PCW was merely the promotion he did his first show with. Curse of Fenric (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC) The interview I posted literally says that he started training with PCW, unless you think that that's also some sort of fabrication or "promotional material". Yes, it's not verifiable, but neither is your unsupported accusation that the PCW website is 'wrong'. I don't consider the use of PCW/MCW to be controversial and you seem to be the only one who has an issue with it being used, based solely on WP:OR. I'm not sure what kind of sources you are expecting for this sort of information other than the schools themselves, the only way I can imagine anyone could realistically have an issue with their use would be due to WP:COI. This seems to be a clear case for WP:IAR regarding the primary sourcing policy relating to BLP, since this is clearly not what the rule was intended for. Either way, do you have any objection to the fact that Murphy was at some point trained by Carlo Cannon, and we can add that to represent his training in Australia rather than the blanket listing of 'WWE Performance Center' which, again, is wholly inaccurate and misleading given that he was wrestling for years before the Performance Center opened? 94.174.101.121 (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC) You said it yourself. It's a blog, and therefore it can not be used as a source no matter what. I expect a source independent of both the promotion and the wrestler. That is plain as day on BLP and you can't skirt around it. Yes I do have a issue with Carlo being used because they started training in this business at the same time IIRC. Carlo only got good after he went to train with Lance Storm, which IIRC wasn't until 2008 - after Murphy made his in ring debut. As you would have seen, I have found an independent source confirming Murphy training at the Performance Centre - independent even of WWE. So the onus is on you to do the same thing with the PCW claim. Darkwind in an admin and his interpretation of the BLP rules are correct in support of what I have said all along. There is no case here for WP:IAR. Curse of Fenric (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC) One thing I do want to point out is that the fact that I'm an admin really isn't supposed to lend my voice any additional weight (beyond the fact that it implies I have extensive experience interpreting and applying Wikipedia policy). What should lend more weight is the fact that I have been a Wikipedian for over 12 years, and I can guarantee you that neither the PCW nor the MCW websites are reliable sources. Exactly as Curse of Fenric (t c) said above, these websites are "promotional material designed to attract wrestlers ... They are suspect[,] as is every other website ... seeking attention and the money of youngsters wanting to be a professional wrestler." You said yourself, 94.174.101.121, that you agree that the information contained on PCW/MCW websites is not verifiable, which means it fails WP:V, not to mention BLP and RS. Editors do not need proof that a source is wrong to call it unreliable. —Darkwind (talk) 05:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC) The statement was about [4], an interview with the wrestler in question, who stated in the interview that he trained at PCW Academy. The IP response was stating that, although the statement came directly from the wrestler himself, it would probably not stand up because the publisher would not be considered a reliable source. The statement was not about the PCW/MCW websites. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC) As GaryColemanFan says, that comment was a reference to the Blogspot interview I posted, which clearly would fail WP:V as a standalone source, but I posted it simply as evidence against Curse of Fenric's contention that the PCW and MCW websites were "wrong", which was based entirely on WP:OR. Again, I feel that the dismissal of the PCW and MCW websites is asinine; the fact is that Murphy/Adams trained to be a wrestler in Melbourne, began his career in those promotions and is listed on the schools of those promotions and no others. Additionally, while not a verifiable source in Wikipedia terms, the Blogspot interview that I posted would suggest that claims made on the MCW/PCW websites are accurate, and in this interview he explicitly states that he was trained by Carlo Cannon (4:42). The fact that there isn't a third-party website that provides this information is redundant, since the nature of the information is so specific that it's unlikely to ever be covered by a traditional third-party source. As stated, I feel that WP:IGNORE is wholly appropriate here, especially given the relatively innocuous nature of the claim being made. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Carlo Cannon never trained anyone at PCW for a start. He was an independent trainer with no affiliation, and like I said also elsewhere Carlo didn't train anyone until he was done with Lance Storm, which wasn't until 2008. That all aside, this is about a source that does NOT fail WP:V as Darkwind said. Both the PCW and the MCW websites do fail, because they are primary and promotional. That's an automatic fail on WP:BLP, whether my OR is accurate or not. Bottom line - you MUST have an independent verifiable source (as I do for the Performance Centre claim even though I didn't really need it). Until then, no PCW Academy on the page. Curse of Fenric (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Did you miss what I just posted? In this interview Murphy explicitly and concisely states at 4:42 that he was trained by Carlo Cannon, verifying the legitimacy of the information on the MCW website. To not include this information because of a misappropriation of the BLP primary sources rule is pure WP:BURO and I'd question why you are so vehemently against it. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 03:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC) A podcast is a reliable source under WP:V? Talking of WP:BURO........ Curse of Fenric (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC) A podcast in which he states in no uncertain terms that he was trained by Carlo Cannon is enough to support the validity of the claim on the MCW website. To ignore this information based on an overly-strict and illogical interpretation of the rules is absurd. Based on your user history I'd suggest you have a clear WP:COI here. I'm not sure why this debate is even continuing TBH. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC) A podcast from Wrestle Radio Australia, which is run by professional wrestling commentator Josh Armour and professional wrestling manager Todd Eastman (i.e. both insiders and experts in the relevant field). Looks like a reliable source to me. That definitely trumps "IIRC," which is textbook WP:OR. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC) I don't think the ownership of the podcast is particularly important, IMO the fact that Murphy himself confirms the validity of the information contained on the MCW website should be enough to justify its use as a reliable source in this case for this specific information based on WP:IAR. But yes, the podcast itself could (and probably should) be considered a valid source in its own right, although I'm not sure of the standard procedure regarding non-text sources. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC) The SOP of non text sources IIRC is text back up is required, so we're back to the same problem again, 97. And Gary, you're being uncivil again by the way. Explain how Josh Armour and Todd Eastman are experts in the field in Australia - a small area thereof. Curse of Fenric (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC) We have text back up in the form of the MCW website. The information contained on it has been validated, and I think invoking the BLP primary sourcing rule to prevent this information from being displayed when we have clear evidence that the information is reliable would be a case of WP:GAME. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC) No text back up is required. If it's a podcast run by industry professionals, it's a reliable source. Stop trying to make up new rules. And no, it's not uncivil to say that "IIRC" doesn't trump WP:V. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Can we end this discussion then and have Carlo Cannon listed as Murphy's trainer? 94.174.101.121 (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC) No, because there isn't a reliable source available to confirm it. The podcast doesn't validate the MCW website because the podcast is not reliable. The podcast is not run by industry professionals and I intend to prove it as well. Gary, aggression is uncivil Curse of Fenric (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Okay, I can now prove it. Josh Armour and Todd Eastman are nothing more than two fans who happen to work for Riot City Wrestling in Adelaide, Josh as a ring announcer and Todd as a manager. This fact disqualifies WrestleRadio as a news source because it is not run by a news group independent of the business - and is therefore self published and as per MCW and PCW unreliable under BLP. Curse of Fenric (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC) You cannot use WP:ORiginal research to say, "The source may say one thing, but I know better." Sources do not have to be independent of the business. Wrestling Observer, Figure Four Weekly, Pro Wrestling Torch, Pro Wrestling Illustrated, WrestleView, and many more are used to source wrestling articles. That's just logical. The source is two people knowledgeable about the business, interviewing the person in question directly, who directly states that he trained with Carlo Cannon. You cannot just say, "I'm more knowledgeable than people in the business and Buddy Murphy about where Buddy Murphy trained." Buddy Murphy says that he did not wrestle untrained for 7 years. He says he had a trainer. The trainer has been added, alongside your information. Problem solved. Let's all move on with our lives. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC) WrestleRadio is not anywhere near any of those in terms of reliability and verifiability. Those two people are not independent of the business - they are involved as I have stated, and it's not OR. Here is Eastman and Here is Armour. You must find a truly independent source that is reliable to back up your edit. Until you do, it is not possible under WP rules to add his trainer prior to the Performance Centre. That's just the way it is, and you continue to ignore the rules of BLP - heck you even questioned an admin who was involved in this. Your edit has been reverted in good faith and the onus is on you to get a proper verifiable independent source - like I did even though I didn't need to. I am entitled to challenge the primary and not verifiable sources no matter what the reason, again as per Darkwind. Curse of Fenric (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Experts or not, 'insiders' or not, the source literally features Murphy stating in no uncertain terms from his own mouth that he was trained by Carlo Cannon. Once again, to not include that information based on some spurious claims of unreliable sourcing is utterly asinine, and it is becoming increasingly clear that this is deliberate WP:GAMING on your part. At this point this is bordering on disruptive editing. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Ignoring Darkwind on the subject of what is needed for BLP compliance is what is "asinine". Your gaming assumption is false. I am applying WP rules as confirmed by Darkwind. The podcast's reliability is being checked and you need to wait for a ruling on it. If it is cleared, then I'll allow the edit as it will be proven verifiable and therefore would fall within BLP. As long as this is not confirmed, I'll keep it off per BLP. Pure and simple. Curse of Fenric (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC) I think a solid secondary source would settle the issue. Podcast isn't a strong source and probably isn't reliable. If it is important to include, just get a source that isn't disputed. This didn't need to be a knock-down-drag-out gauntlet match. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC) In what way is it "not reliable" if it literally features the article-subject stating the given information? The only way that could possibly not be reliable would be if you're suggesting that the voice of Murphy that appears on the podcast is an imposter, which frankly is ridiculous. Do you understand what the purpose of the reliability requirement is? It's there in order to prevent inaccurate or disputable information from being reported as fact. When the information is coming directly from the subject himself then there's not even any question of it. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC) It is probably reliable for a line attributed to him that states he made that claim. Trouble is article features contradictory sources and it looks like the fight is over one word in an infobox. So here are the options, as I see them: 1) Get some sources that won't be challenged that he trained at X and not at Y, 2) Get rid of that line altogether from the infobox and explain it in body. 3) or put both in properly attributed to their sources. Just looking at what's been presented it appears the guy just trained/received training from two places. That is a common enough occurrence in the wrestling world, so a compromise shouldn't be out of reach. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC) You wouldn't think so, would you? One side has proposed including both. CoF deleted the information, stating that he would not allow it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Yeah, option #3 was implemented but Curse of Fenric kept reverting the change, which is why I've suggested that this is now bordering on disruptive editing on his part. Personally I feel that the WWE Performance Center aspect is a pretty pointless addition, since everyone in NXT trains there, but I'm more than happy to allow it to be included as long as the relevant, sourced information is also displayed. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Option 3 can't be implemented because of what 70 said in the first place. You need a solid secondary source, and the podcast (at this point) is not it. I'm still waiting over on the RS Noticeboard for an admin to make a black or white call on podcasts being reliable or not in this instance. If the call is that it is, that makes it a solid secondary source and my objection to it will disappear. But if it's not, we need an independent, reliable and verifiable secondary source. The PCW source has definitely been knocked on the head on the RS noticeboard, which means that the MCW source is also no good. As far as the Performance Centre goes, I resolved that by providing the sort of source that the other claim needs - independent, reliable and verifiable. So there is no reason why it should be deleted. Incidentally, 94, do Samoa Joe and Rhyno train at the Performance Centre? Guess what - no they don't, because they are not on developmental contracts. Big difference. Curse of Fenric (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Non-factual smear on Zeitgeist the film page

On the page Zeitgeist (film series)‎, two non-factual statements by reviewers are cherry-picked to say the film producer, a living person, is anti-Semitic. Neither reviewer alleges to be stating a fact or basing the allegation on factual material, but that the films "borrow" ideas from the statements of a list of named antisemites. It is guilt by association. The reviewers have no information that the producer everheard of those people or read their works. Neither the films nor the producer have said anything that could be taken to be antisemitic, and the ADL has never named the films or the producer. I have deleted the mentions and the changes were reverted within a few hours.[5]. I have reverted the page a second time just now in keeping with WP:BLP, but third editor promises to recommend a block on whichever editor loses this argument (which I consider a counterproductive threat, as both of us are operating in good faith). Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

We're not making a judgement on the truthfulness by including such passages, just noting that reliable sources have made the claims. One of the sources in question is titled Loughner, “Zeitgeist - The Movie,” and Right-Wing Antisemitic Conspiracism, so it's kinda hard to gloss that over. Tarc (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think repeating malicious gossip on WP is OK, even if sourced to a professional gossiper. And I don't see support for that position in WP:BLP. If that is what the policy means, though, it should just come out and say so. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the issue is one of weight not factual accuracy. I don't happen to believe that the Merolas are anti-semitic, they are simply cranks, but anti-Fed activism has a very strong antisemtic streak and it's not exactly an outrage to link the two, even though I disagree with it. Guy (Help!) 07:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, the sources are not really the quality I initially thought, and there seems to be little else out there outside of the blogosphere making similar assertions about the film series. Tarc (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to libel and slander, the legal risk makes BLP a matter of factual accuracy. That is why the WP:BLP policies are in place. We are not commenting on whether it's a nice movie. We are accusing the man of spouting antisemitic opinions, and that could ruin his career. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

NB I have created the sub-heading below (and copy-pasted one comment above) in order to seperate 'outside' and 'involved' editors comments. This is done to allow new editors to leave their comments above, should they wish.Pincrete (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from 'involved' editors

If our sources say something we can put that into an article. Otherwise it would be censoring the article to your opinion. Malicious gossip? No, just a citation that is reliable giving some information. There is no censorship on Wikipedia. Earl King Jr. (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The real problem with the Zeigeist article isn't so much that it includes statements of opinion to the effect that the films are 'right wing' or 'antisemitic', but that it excludes any contrary opinion - sources have been systematically cherry-picked to the extent that (for example) a passing comment in a review of another movie entirely was cited for a characterisation as "conspiracy crap". Clearly unacceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Firstly a correction, both the source and the criticism section of the article state that the film is "steeped in …… covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories" NOT that the producer is 'anti-Semitic'. Secondly I am the editor who reverted (though not the one accused above of making a threat on 'talk', and someone who has largely tried to stay out of the in-fighting on that page). Thirdly user Grammar/Sfarney has brought this here without meaningful discussion on talk and indeed threatened to do so on the first instance that he raised the issue: [6].

Clarification of the BLP implications here would be helpful.Pincrete (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, with respect, that isn't a subject for this noticeboard.Pincrete (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

In as much as WP:BLP is clearly relevant when discussing works so clearly identified with a single individual, non-adherence to WP:NPOV is very much an issue for this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

For the same reason (identified with a single individual), calling the films antisemitic is effectually calling the producer antisemitic. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

'steeped in … … covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories' isn't the same as 'anti-Semetic', I'm not trying to minimise the accusation, merely trying to discourage over-statement of it.Pincrete (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

There has been plenty meaningful discussion of these two quotes in days past. It came to nothing. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Sfarney|Grammar, the link you offer is discussion about Edward Mullins, (which is background I agree), but it has nothing to do with 'anti-Semitism', which is, ostensibly the reason for this BLP Noticeboard action.Pincrete (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, Goldberg mentions Mullins to strengthen and elongate her accusations of antisemitism. It is of the same device -- antisemitism by association, which consists of having made comparable statements about super-rich international bankers -- but in the case of Joseph, having nothing to do with Jews. It is a cheap shot with very nasty implications, and it does not deserve to be featured on the Encyclopedia. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, the sources are not really the quality I initially thought, and there seems to be little else out there outside of the blogosphere making similar assertions about the film series. Tarc (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Not all such are negative, nor contain similar assertions. See this. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Sfarney|Grammar, how does one article that DOESN"T mention 'anti-Semitism', invalidate one (of several) that DO. By all means try to include text (as opinion - just as this is being used) that gives a positive opinion of the film, that is completely different from trying to remove text that doesn't.Pincrete (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Positive and negative do not capture the discussion. The issue is Goldberg's statement that because the film says super-rich international bankers have too much political power and consume disproportionate quantities of the world's resources, the film (and thus the producer) is antisemitic. That is a logical leap of bizarre proportions, and it becomes a statement more about the reviewer than the reviewed. As such, it might belong on Goldberg's page rather than the target of her wrath. We might find comparably reliable sources calling people slut, nazi, pervert, stanist, chavanist pig, rake, fraud, theif, or any of hundreds of other defamatory epithets -- and antisemitic is among the most extreme with the most severe professional consequences. Do we just repeat such statements because they are colorful? To demonstrate the case, I challenge you to find such words among the WP articles on past presidents, though any number of such epithets could be found in the printed media. In ordinary society, repeating such colorful accusations is called "gossip," and the more colorful is termed "juicy gossip." But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gossip megaphone. The currency of an encyclopedia is fact, not slander. We know from Goldberg's own statement that the films (and the producer) contain not a particle of real antisemitism -- not a molecule. She tells us the logical leaps she is taking to get to her slander. Hence, we know those epithets are not fact and not even valid opinion. They are on the same fact level with, "You look like the SOB I had a fight with last night." Yet by cherry-picking out that statements with three repetitions of word antisemitism in the article, the stink is hammered home to the reader in disingenuous association. Bottom line: We don't megaphone slanderous denunciations through Wikipedia on the slim excuse that someone else said them first. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Example: James Forsyth of the Washington Post wrote that many Europeans consider it obvious that Bush is a moron.[7] Regardless of RS (eminent political commentator published in a blue ribbon new source), the comment does not belong on Wikipedia's George W. Bush page. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Even if it were asserted, in Wikipedia's voice, that the film were antisemitic, it wouldn't mean the director is antisemitic. And, technically. The Producers draws on "antisemitic conspiracy theories". Does anyone want to complain that Mel Brooks is antisemitic? Issues about the film do not necessarily reflect the producer-director. There are three (or more) questionable inferences required to get from the statements we quoted to the implication that Peter is antisemitic. We should expect the readers to see that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Technically, The Producers is a fictional satirical comedy, and the comparison to Zeitgeist does not apply. If The Producers were a documentary, we would have a different discussion. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, statements by Grammar'sLittleHelper, including the title of this section, do constitute a WP:BLP violation against Ms. Goldberg, who I presume is still living, or at least recently dead. WP:BLP doesn't apply as strongly to discussion pages as it does to articles, but it does still apply. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, that escalated quickly. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I think there are two issues here, and it doesn't help anyone to muddle them. The first is whether ideas in the film are similar to those of (named), extreme-right individuals ('Mullins' discussion). I'm neutral as to whether that connection should be made, very possibly not. The second issue is whether to 'edit out' of a review the opinion that the film is 'steeped in … covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories'. An editor is asserting that it is somehow 'non-factual' or 'malicious gossip' for her to think so.Pincrete (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk page discussion herePincrete (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Statements by Grammar'sLittleHelper, including the title of this section, do constitute a WP:BLP violation against Ms. Goldberg. I believe that Grammer is totally wrong in his assessment or opinion of how Wikipedia works. Goldberg is notable. Other notable people have asserted the same information that Grammer does not like. Grammer is accusing Goldberg and other authors of reliable sources of framing or an attacking of Peter Joseph. That is not so. If information can be found that says otherwise then that information if well sourced can be added. It appears that Grammer wants to strip information out of the article because he thinks the information is about the author of the information being this or that unfair. He really should not accuse and attack Goldberg and his own opinion as being correct. Saying Goldberg has smeared Joseph is way off the wall and that talk page is way out of control, confusing and there are many supporters of the Zeitgeist movement that are attempting to present ideas according to Zeitgeist instead of according to outside from Zeitgeist sources. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The comment above is a whole lot of personal attack in violation of WP:PA. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Grammer please do not strike through my comments. I reverted that. If I made a personal attack which I don't think I did, I will apologize, but striking through another persons comments seems a bit much. Apparently emotions are intense about editing this article but lets deescalate. Content is the problem I think and possibly you so not agree with what I was saying. I am saying that Goldberg is describing the movie and its sources and that same description can be found in multiple sources beyond here. We have to go by our cited information and not an editors feelings/opinions about things. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Just confine your remarks to the content and don't try to paint me as a Zeitgeist groupie when I argue for a decent encyclopedia page. Goldberg is not describing the movie. She is speculating that Joseph "borrowed" the theory about international bankers from a list of antisemites that she names. That is not a description. Then she calls Joseph's theory "covert antisemitism" -- like wow. Where did that come from? -- if you complain about super-rich politically powerful bankers you must be a covert antisemite??? And yet that is the path of her thinking as told in her column. Chip Berlet follows the same twisted path. Their attack on Joseph has nothing to do with the movies or with Joseph as real person. But when we cherry-pick those wild-eyed speculations out of the gossip columns and frame them in the Wikipedia as "reliable sources," brother, we are violating WP:BPL. Wikipedia is not a gossip megaphone, but it could become one if we include nonsense like that. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Chip Berlet, has credibility as studying far-right organisations and their ideas, Goldberg has not and is mainly quoting Berlet. For that reason the linking to those organisations (if used), would probably be better done 'directly', not through Goldberg. Sfarney|Grammar, I've no idea what 'Joseph as real person' is like.Pincrete (talk) 10:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no "linking" between Joseph and any organization named by Berlet. It's just slander. And the Socialist Standard does not agree it's "right wing." If the great Chip Berlet can't get that right, how good is he sniffing out "antisemitism" in a film that never mentions Jews outside the religious context. These people have the reliability of witch doctors predicting rain. So much for the "R" part of RS. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with Sfarney's WP:BLP argument, but I think this discussion illustrates the source may have other problems; primary source FRINGE given undue weight. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Sfarney|Grammar, IF you think 'Socialist Standard' also has a valid opinion on the political ideas in the film, (though hitherto you have been very disparaging about it). Propose some text for inclusion in the 'response' section of the article. The fact that one reviewer doessn't mention 'right wing ideas' does not 'disprove' one (of several) that DO. Pincrete (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not the topic talk page. There is one issue here and one only: The baseless charge of antisemitism against Peter Joseph that has no foundation in logic or fact. Chip Berlet is free to throw around that slander in any publication that is willing to host it. But the Wikipedia has specific WP:BLP policies about living persons that we must follow. And casting baseless charges of antisemitism does not conform with that policy. Mindlessly parroting Berlet and/or his puppets when we know the charge is baseless also does not conform with that policy. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Your interpretation of policy - to me - is indisinguishable from 'I alone know what is true', (so I don't need sources to support anything I say). Pincrete (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Bear with me a moment. A year ago I had never heard of Peter Joseph or Zeitgeist. Sometime in the past year I saw part of the first reel and lost patience. I still have no knowledge of Joseph, but (1) I hold as a sacred trust that it is wrong to slander strangers who may in fact be of good will, and (2) I want WP to be a good encyclopedia. I have no dogs in this fight other than that. Chip Berlet gives us all the evidence he has that Joseph is an antisemite, and he confesses through his own erroneous reasoning that his accusation is essentially baseless: Joseph says some of the same things X said, so Joseph must have got his ideas from X (ILLOGICAL ALERT #1); since X was an antisemite, Joseph must be an antisemite (ILLOGICAL ALERT #2). That reasoning is so terrible, Aristotle must be groaning in his grave. I also do not know Berlet from a bar of soap, but I would never ask an intellect of that caliber to investigate anything. And we have no business repeating it. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It is properly sourced as Chip Berlet's opinion. Think it is still a weight issue. David Duke's page doesn't shrink from identifying him as an antisemite, but I suppose there are many more sources for that assertion. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no logical connection between David Duke and Peter Joseph. Nowhere. Nohow. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Just an example that referencing a source that refers to individual's work as antisemitic or right-wing isn't necessarily a BLP issue. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Convince me that I could write and publish an antisemitic book and not be labeled an antisemite. In most cases, nothing else is required to make the list. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No, thank you. References cite critic's statements that conspiracy theories are antisemitic and statements are accurately attributed to those expressing that view. It may be a primary source FRINGE view that may be given UNDUE WEIGHT, but it doesn't appear to be a BLP issue. Wiki has plenty of articles with critics describing people/things/ideas as racist, sexist, ect. As appropriately attributed commentary it ought to be fine. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Now that is REALLY cherry picking. There is no support for the theory that a person accused of writing an antisemitic book or producing an antisemitic documentary could escape being labeled antisemitic. The consequence is inevitable. And now you suggest we should bury a living person with the slander, a person who never mentioned the word Jew or any synonym. That would be truly irresponsible and not in keeping with WP policy. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Sfarney|Grammar, stating the obvious, if you knowingly wrote a book that was anti-Semetic, you would BE anti-Semetic. I think you mean ACCUSED of being XYZ, which of course does not mean you ARE XYZ. Readers have brains to understand the difference, (and if they don't we are all wasting our time).Pincrete (talk) 09:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Now you've got it! There is no way to accuse a book|video|documentary of being antisemitic without directly accusing the author|producer|writer of being antisemitic. These nice arguments that "we are labeling only the video and not the man" are utterly empty. The statements in the video are non-fiction, non-satirical, non-comedy, alleged to be fact statements, made by the face of Peter Joseph. And if Wikipedia says those are antisemitic statements, Wikipedia is accusing living person Joseph of antisemitism. WP:BLP Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Your interpretation of policy Sfarney is indistinguishable from 'I alone know what is true so I don't need sources to support anything I say. That is a problem because now we have tied up the talk page editing tendentiously over your theory of the Zeitgeist being wronged. You say you do not know about the movies really or the group but want to defend them. If the group's movies use a platform of classic antisemitic theory which conjures up aspects of the Elders of Zion and Alex Jones with some other Banking conspiracy inferences it is legit for use to give the sources like this [8] or [9] or this [10] and on and on. It is considered a conspiracy theory movie which draws its information from classic conspiracy theory like this example [11]. We are just reporting that. It is an overwhelming amount of citations that say that. Your personal opinion unless you are notable on this subject can not be used no matter how much you personally are thinking it is not fair or 'right' to give these sources. Calling one of these people smearing is not a good argument. There is a belief in a conspiracy on Wikipedia to defame or exclude Zeitgeist [12] with the Zeitgeist group descending on the Wikipedia article claiming conspiracy about marginalizing them. I would say there is no conspiracy and the average editor does not really care just edits though there may be some personal interest, that has to be transcended for good editing. Goldberg is just writing her thoughts about the movie as a journalist. Accusations of smearing are not appropriate. We should not be attacking or saying they have wrong or sinister motives in your claim to defend Wikipedia from them as your logic. Your interpretation of policy is not Wikipedia policy. I suggest we close this now. The sources for the information are legit. No one said Peter Joseph is lying. He just made a movie according to our sources which uses sources that clearly plug into those classic conspiracy arguments. Then the movie is described as propaganda, agitprop, conspiracy, etc. by our reliable sources, overwhelmingly so. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Try hard to thread your remarks, King; you can do it. (1) I have never stated Zeitgest was harmed; This is the Living Persons page and Peter Joseph is a living person who is wronged by these baseless allegations parroted on WP. (2) Let us not use verbal magic. Joseph's films do not mention the Jews or the Protocols of Zion or the Blood Libel or anything tied to the Jews except Jesus. (3) If Americans cannot discuss banking misconduct without being charged with antisemitism, the US Congress, many prosecutors, the FDIC, the FHA, and every newspaper are in a whole heap of trouble. Antisemitism in this case is just a smear. (4) I have not accused those journalists of sinister motives. I have accused them of badly flawed reasoning. (5) So far, only two sources accuse Joseph of antisemitism because of this vague similarity between statements of misconduct, and one of those sources quotes the other. No one here is overwhelmed by those two sources. (6) Some of your text is WP:PA/ad hominem that does not require response. (7) There has been no reliable discussion of Peter Joseph's sources beyond speculation. Allegations of his sources by the sources cited have used weasel language that indicates they don't care what his real sources are. The charges against Joseph are without basis and are slanderous. WP is not a megaphone for slander. I would like WP to be a respectable encyclopedia. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The descriptions are about the film, and its ideas, films are not living persons and cannot be slandered (by the way, it's libel when written). Leni Riefenstahl's 1930 films are often described as embracing Nazi aesthetics, but whether she was an active ideologue, an opportunistic 'fellow traveller' or an innocent artist remains an open question. Should we have also suppressed that debate while she was alive?Pincrete (talk) 09:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know anything about that issue, but your description already draws two great differences. (1) Nobody questions whether Nazi aesthetics were the aesthetics of the Nazis. In contrast, Berlet and Goldberg make the leap of faith that anyone who criticizes the undue political influence of global banks is criticizing Jews. (2) The question here is not "suppressing debate." The question here is whether Wikipedia should be retailing the slander that Joseph's film is antisemitic because it criticizes bankers. There was no debate until Laval and I brought it up -- it was asserted as fact in the article. And as stated above, the film is an intimate creation of Joseph, with Joseph authoring, producing, directing, and narrating the film with his face on the screen. It is impossible to assert the film is "antisemitic" without labeling Joseph. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

But the article DOESN"T say either the film or its maker are antisemitic, it says that named critics have accused the film of being 'steeped in …… covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.' and 'far-right ideas'. If the article said what you KEEP saying it says, I would wholeheartedly agree with you, but it doesn't. Perhaps Ms Goldberg is hyper-sensitive on such matters. If we followed your logic, no feminist critic could ever say that she thought a book or film was mysoginistic or sexist, since it could not be established as a fact that the book (or even less the author) was.Pincrete (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

And perhaps Ms Goldberg (a) works for a publication protected by a team of aggressive lawyers, (2) has errors and omissions (E&O) insurance, (c) has the legal shield of being a reporter, and (d) has a deep pocket that can absorb a libel suit. Wikipedia has none of this, which is why Wikipedia has a BLP policy. Wikipedia does not have all the same armor as those hypothetical "feminist critics." As you said above, if a person wrote a truly antisemitic book, that would be sufficient proof that the writer was antisemitic. But, "antisemitic book" as determined by ...? Sorry, that is even worse. If the issue were taken to court and Joseph were able to show by a variety of evidence (1) that neither he nor the video is antisemitic (i.e., the statement is false -- it doesn't even mention Jews), (2) that we knew or should have known when we made the statement that it was false and had a reckless disregard for the truth (which is the character of your argument), and (3) that he had suffered damage to his reputation as a result of this publication, Wikipedia has a defamation problem.[13] If we want to keep Wikipedia alive, we don't go there. It doesn't matter whether saying those things scratches a personal itch, we still don't go there. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to think that WP has a BLP policy for more honourable reasons than libel law alone, and on talk you claimed the legal issue was irrelevant. I said 'knowingly wrote', etc., there are countless examples of works/words/films etc. having offended this group or that (Salman Rushdie?), the creators claim the offence was non-existent or unintended, we report that denial as well as the criticism. In the Rushdie case, we wouldn't ask an Ayatollah/Muslim critic to show us his 'certificate in logical reasoning' before reporting the criticism he makes, readers can judge whether that criticism is logical or fair.Pincrete (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Better you should find my actual words and quote them as written in context. In this case, we can see the reasoning is illogical and Goldberg admits Joseph never mentions Jews. Apparently, there is no other hint about a specific religious or racial heritage in his film, else we can believe Goldberg would have mentioned it. Rather, she gives full proof that her accusation "hangs in the air like a mountain suspended by a thread," to quote the Talmud, and has no basis in fact. But that does not stop her from making the accusation. It should stop us, though. We know the accusation is without foundation, both by Berlet and by Goldberg. That is the gross error of confusing opinion with fact, as I mention elsewhere. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so are there any credible sources that say Peter Joseph was just walking along minding his own business when all those connections just happened to fall in his lap? Accusing one or more of our sources of slander is serious business. Are you planning on taking them to court? Your post above works as a Facebook blog entry but not here. Please stop trying to denigrate legit sources by saying they are slandering the subject. Are you making a legal threat? Are you a lawyer? Are you notable beyond being a Wikipedia editor and have published something that takes apart these aspects? Reliable sources are just that, reliable. Personal diatribes saying our sources are slandering someone is a mistake. A free press says what it wants and the Zeitgeist movement also says they are being slandered? Has anyone written about it that would make a source or is it just your personal feeling? Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

After many warnings to King about his conduct, and now this. I have reluctantly referred the matter to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Earl_King_Jr. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bill_Cosby#RfC:_Should_the_allegations_of_sexual_assault_be_mentioned_in_the_lede.3F

I think more experienced eyes are needed at Talk:Bill_Cosby#RfC:_Should_the_allegations_of_sexual_assault_be_mentioned_in_the_lede.3F as there is an effort to loose put a "Rapist" necktie around Bill Cosby who has only been accused of such things. There are no cases, no trial, no evidence, etc. Just innuendo.

I also think the section of the article bring up all these accusations need to be trimmed back but I'm not sure what makes sense here? More opinions and ideas might be helpful. Georgeivs vid (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This is similar to what's going on at the Dennis Hastert article. I personally wouldn't want to bet money that either of them is innocent, but there have been no legal charges in either case, and there has been a denial in both cases; no one is trying to limit info in the article bodies, but the lead should show some restraint.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

More help please, this is a bit ridiculous. Georgeivs vid (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a current ANI discussion regarding this issue. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Luis Posada Carriles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Luis Posada Carriles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A concern was raised through OTRS that this article is too one-sided and negative towards the subject, which I'd tend to agree with, however my concern is more with the lede. Is it appropriate to describe the subject flat out as a "terrorist" and a CIA agent rather than a more neutral "Cuban exile militant" or "activist" or something like that? I don't necessarily question his anti-Castro activities or his association with the CIA and the fact that he has been indeed called a terrorist is sourced, however as in many other cases this is a loaded term depending on who uses it. I feel the lede could use some more neutral wording. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, scholarly source material uniformly describes him as responsible for terrorist activities, if not actually a terrorist. The fact that the plane he was responsible for blowing up was from Castroist Cuba doesn't change the fact that was convicted for blowing it up. I would be amenable to something like "was responsible for...." or "is considered a terrorist in...." but I'm not overly concerned with the current version, either. "Exile militant" is not terrible, but "activist" refers to a completely different sort of action; besides, I see no support in the sources for "activist." Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I agree "activist" is inappropriate, yes. The problem is that "terrorist" on the other hand is in Wikipedia's voice. It would be better if he was described as something like "Cuban exile militant" and then the terrorist part was worded as you say, "considered by..." and so on. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not necessarily arguing for this, but the BBC has called him an "anti-Communist activist" (as well as a "militant)[14] and he has been called an "Anti-Castro activist" by CNN[15] and The Washington Post.[16] Highlighting the issue here, the lede of The Washington Post article states, "He is, depending upon whom you talk to, either a terrorist or a patriot." That could even be used in the article. My own view is that "anti-Castro activist and militant" is likely the most neutral way to describe him in the lede. There is precedent in similar articles to leave out "terrorist" and describe what the person has done. Although he is called a "CIA agent" by various sources, that term is also not very descriptive. Various individuals directly work for the CIA direct representing the goals of the United States, whereas others who might have overlapping goals might be paid by the CIA or be CIA assets. I also have concerns about the use of primary source documents which appear to be cherry-picked. - Location (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This discussion was had on the article's Talk page already: see here. I agree with the editors who went around this subject already: If the FBI and CIA and the Cuban government agree he is a terrorist, that is indeed a broad consensus. I understand your reluctance to use the loaded word "terrorist," but in this case it is warranted. Moreover, we should be careful about applying this word only to Arabs or enemies of the United States. If you blow up an airliner and kill 73 people, you are a terrorist by any definition. Chisme (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there was some discussion of this eight years ago, but it does not appear to me that there was a clear consensus on how it was to be handled. At least one of those in favor of using "terrorist" was later blocked for using sock accounts. I have no objections to the use of "terrorist" in conjunction with attribution, and Osama bin Laden serves as a prominent example of how this should be handled. See Osama bin Laden#Beliefs and ideology which states: "His viewpoints and methods of achieving them had led to him being designated as a terrorist by scholars,[55][56] journalists from The New York Times,[57][58] the BBC,[59] and Qatari news station Al Jazeera,[60] analysts such as Peter Bergen,[61] Michael Scheuer,[62] Marc Sageman,[63] and Bruce Hoffman.[64][65] He was indicted on terrorism charges by law enforcement agencies in Madrid, New York City, and Tripoli.[66]" Similar to this subject, bin Laden was labeled a terrorist by CIA officials (e.g. George Tenet). What is terrorism is a matter of perspective exemplified by those who are convinced the 9/11 attacks were justified and that the downing of Iran Air Flight 655 was a nefarious action on the part of the US. - Location (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is one of those situations where we are far better off relying on scholarly source material (of which there is no shortage) than American newspapers. We wouldn't use the Cuban or venezuelan press without attribution; we certainly should not use the US media in Wikipedia's voice, either. It is very easy to perpetuate systemic bias here, because Americans are heavily represented among both editors and media source material, and simply because he was anti-Castro, more likely to look (relatively) favorably upon him. Scholarly sources do tend to refer to him as terrorist; in addition, agencies of both relevant governments do, and he was convicted of blowing up an airliner by a third government. Location, which primary documents are you referring to? Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The only source that I see that could be considered scholarly is the National Security Archive, whose objective is "to check rising government secrecy", and all their work on this subject seems to have been compiled by Peter Kornbluh. As above, I have no objections to citilng them, or even agencies of the US government, in a manner consistent with what is noted in bin Laden's article. Regarding primary documents, for example, the opening sentence uses this document to state that Posada was a terrorist and CIA agent when the document only states: "We have determined that this agency had a close relationship with one person whose name has been mentioned in conjunction with the bombing." - Location (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Rather than hemming and hawing, maybe we should rely on the dictionary. From Merriam-Webster: terrorism: 1) the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal; 2) the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. Is "scholarly source material" really required here when Carriles orchestrated the deaths of 73 people on Cubana de Aviación Flight 455? If that isn't enough for you, he admitted to plotting attacks that damaged tourist spots in Havana and killed an Italian visitor there in 1997. He was convicted in Panama in a 2000 bomb plot against Fidel Castro. Yes, he's resting comfortably in Miami, but that doesn't make him any less a terrorist. Chisme (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should not, otherwise that would be original research. I'm not contesting that the man is considered by many sources to be a terrorist, but rather than the current use of the term in the lede is inappropriate because "terrorist" (unlike "singer" or "businessman") is a completely subjective term. Someone's terrorist is someone else's freedom fighter. We should be neutral and highlight both ends of the spectrum in the article, not just one. I'm not arguing for the removal of the term "terrorist" from the article, just for the re-wording of the lede so that it doesn't seem like we are declaring the man to be a terrorist. Combined with the "CIA agent" bit and the intro looks disingenuous and it makes us look like we have an agenda and a bone to pick. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

And I highly agree with Location's suggestion that this be handled in a manner similar to the Bin Laden article. "X is a blah blah blah... considered by Y to be Z" is the correct and neutral way to handle all such material. Not "X is a terrorist". §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

How is it "original research" when someone by his actions conforms so thoroughly to a dictionary definition? Words are words, terrorist being one of them. Someone's terrorist is NOT someone else's freedom fighter. A freedom fighter doesn't commit actions with the goal of frightening or murdering civilians. You guys are splitting hairs and turning an encyclopedia into a Caspar Milquetoast adventure, but I see there is no arguing with you. The Spanish wikipedia says about Carrilles in the lead, "Es considerado un terrorista por los gobiernos de Cuba y Venezuela por ser el autor intelectual del atentado contra el Vuelo 455 de Cubana de 1976." Chisme (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"Is considered a terrorist" is not the same as "is a terrorist". Why is it so hard to understand that? This is not your blog, it's an encyclopedia that is supposed to be neutral. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's not the same. I speak Spanish. I know this isn't my blog. I disagree with you, but I understand the need to take into account the delicate feelings of murderers in online biographical articles. I presented the Spanish wikipedia's lead as a suggestion for a compromise here. Chisme (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP and WP:NPOV apply everywhere, to everything. If you don't like that then you're in the wrong website. This is not the place to advance your dislike of the subject of an article, sarcastically or otherwise. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Could we take it down a couple of notches, please? Yes, "terrorist" is a subjective description, and should be attributed. What is not subjective is that the FBI and the Cuban government call him a terrorist; that he was convicted of blowing up a civilian plane with hundreds of people in it; and that he was for a long period of time a CIA agent. There is no dispute about these last three facts, and they are attested by a number of sources, and ergo should form the basis of the lede. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I would like to fix the problem, not entertain other editor's opinion that their preferences should trump our policies. So what is the proposed wording then? Something like what I initially suggested, with "...has been called a terrorist..." later? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I would word the first lede paragraph like this; "Luis Clemente Faustino Posada Carriles (born February 15, 1928) (nicknamed Bambi) is a Cuban exile militant and former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) agent. He is considered a terrorist by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Government of Cuba, and has been convicted of involvement in the bombing of Cubana flight 455, which killed 73 people." That is slightly wordier than the present form, but if you dislike "terrorist" in Wikipedia's voice and still wish to maintain neutrality, I believe that is the way to go. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that is a good suggestion. I have no objections to adding mention of other notables who consider him to be a terrorist (similar to the bin Laden article). If possible, I would like to see the "CIA agent" issue (per page 6 of this source) clarified. Not crucially important: the first section briefly refers to "activist" and I wonder if this view should be expanded with appropriate weight to those who have used that label for him. - Location (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 and Location: I'm about to head out on break until Monday (probably won't have edit access until then) - I have no problem with the proposed wording. That's how "terrorist" should be presented. Once we say "is considered X by Y" then the problem with Wikipedia's voice goes away. I agree with having a bit more clarity around the CIA bit, but that's secondary. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "agent of the CIA" can mean many things, but the lede is not the place to get into that. It is a broadly accurate descriptor. Therefore, unless there are further objections, I will insert this version in the next day or so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Was this a BLP violation at Kevin B. MacDonald‎?

See [17] - the statement that "MacDonald has also been accused of employing scapegoating techniques that resemble classical Nazism." has twice had "that resemble classical Nazism" removed, the 2nd time as a claimed BLP violation( the first time as pov). However, the reference has a quotation from the source which says " MacDonald's techniques of scapegoating may have evolved in complexity from classical Nazi fascism, but the similarities are far from remote." I'm not at all clear where the BLP violation is, although if I'd written the text I would probably have attributed it. I restored it after the first removal as we of course allow varying points of view but mainly because it seems to be a reflection of the source. The editor who called it a BLP violation, User:GingerBreadHarlot, has said on the talk page that "This entire article is Antigentile smears, defamation and slanders against Kevin B. MacDonald from activist groups and individuals that make a living off the anti-Semitism canard". Doug Weller (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps enclosing it in quotes would be better, given the delicacy of the claim. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

An excellent point, although at the moment the sourced text isn't there. Hm, it isn't actually a quote though, so perhaps moving some of the quotation in the reference there, with attribution? Doug Weller (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that would be fine (the source seems OK to me). Has GingerBreadHarlot discussed the issue further? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

On the Kevin MacDonald article, there appears to be an over abundance of BLP slandering and defaming him with Antigentile accusations of the anti-Semitism trope, Racism red herring or using the Neo-Nazi canard, because he critically analyzes Jews, Judaism, Jewish culture or Israel. This is obvious BLP and POV stalking when you look at the editors history who repeatedly push the ADL / SPLC lines or find other references to push the anti-Semitism smear. Criticizing Israeli government or analyzing Jewish culture / behaviors using scholarly resources is not anti-Semitic, even if the outcomes hurt some peoples feelings. Basically anyone with opposing opinions gets defamed by ADL / SPLC with the anti-Semitism canard and then POV warrior activist editors re-write the articles attacking him using scholarly sources that make statements that are obvious defamation of character. More quotations are needed in the article around the smears and it should be clearly defined who is making these Antigentile accusations, especially in the lede. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a BLP violation if something is sourced. Calling sourced things 'canards' and 'political correctness' is a tad much. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

From my perspective, this editor is pushing a pov and trying to remove criticism he doesn't like. His last series of edits[18] removed a quote from the Cal State Long Beach academic senate that said ""the anti-Semitic and white ethnocentric views he has expressed his research." replacing it with "his research", a statement from One People's Project on the grounds it was self-published (it should have been atttributed), and a whole section that said "Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an institute that monitors neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups, has said of MacDonald that "he put the anti-Semitism under the guise of scholarly work... Kevin MacDonald’s work is nothing but gussied-up anti-Semitism. At base it says that Jews are out to get us through their agenda ... His work is bandied about by just about every neo-Nazi group in America." The Anti-Defamation League has included MacDonald in its list of American extremists, Extremism in America, and written a report on MacDonald's views and ties. According to the ADL, MacDonald's views on Jews mimic those of anti-Semites from the late 19th and early 20th centuries." Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 05:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

And what's this "anti-Gentile stuff"? Doug Weller (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that those criticisms should be called out in a separate subsection with its own heading, but they seem to be well-sourced and appropriate responses which belong in the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to see them moved, just don't have time to do it myself. Doug Weller (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

And at the talk page the editor is now calling some edits a crime, pretty close to a legal threat. Doug Weller (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Yes, this MacDonald article has numerous BLP and POV problems. Eg, someone keeps reinserting a claim that "MacDonald has been accused of academic fraud." But there is no source that accuses him of academic fraud. Putting in a passive voice attack like this is disgusting libel. As for the vague Nazi comparisons, haven't you guys heard about Godwin's law? Sure, lots of people may have called a Nazi in some stupid name-calling rant. WP does not need to enumerate everyone who has been called a Nazi, as that would probably include all major politicians. The article should restrict itself to substantive criticisms, and skip the name-calling. Roger (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the 'academic fraud' sentence, and I see that the scapegoating sentence doesn't use the bit about his methods perhaps having evolved from classical Nazi techniques. But your dislike of the word Nazi isn't reason enough to remove anything else so far as I can see - anyone so closely related to Nazi groups/sympathisers, etc. is going to attract comments on those associations. Doug Weller (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Grace Dunham

The biography of Grace Dunham is currently under attack by scrutiny-avoiding IPs inserting questionably-sourced, salacious, undue-weighted and overtly-negative descriptions of fringe claims, while removing the subject's own responses to such claims. Broader editorial review of this page would be appreciated. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

71.84.89.114 (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Diezani Alison-Madueke

Diezani Alison-Madueke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The statement that this subject, Diezani Alison-Madueke fled the country a few days before the expiration of her tenure because she was in fear of being probed by the incoming administration is an outrageous, malicious lie borne out of a vicious rumor mill. Rumor mongering is common phenomena in the Nigerian political landscape. The statement is unsourced, false,malicious and libelous. It unconscionably aims at ruining the name and image of the subject and must therefore be removed effective immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.89.114 (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that no source was cited, I've removed it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:DIVA

Does this essay violate BLP because it mentions Jânio Quadros who was born after the year 1900? Count Iblis (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Dead since 1992. WP:BDP does not apply after 2 decades... also death is mentioned on government page (archive version here) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The reference to that person is, however, only made in the caption of his photograph and not in the essay as such. Removable indeed. Not a BLP violation in itself, but decidedly something of no clear benefit to the essay. Start an RfC on it if anyone insists it remain. Collect (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Libelous remarks against my biography - Mike Bingham

Mike Bingham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

One or more editors (almost certainly people with vested interests in Falkland Islands politics) have published libelous information regarding my scientific credibilty and educational credentials. I see little point in editing the page since they will simply change it back again unless they are stopped. My web site has nearly 2 million 'likes', and my work is entirely funded by income from our penguin adoption programme, so stating that I have no scientific credibility not only damages my personal reputation, but also damages the funding which I rely on to fund penguin research. Such comments are a violation of Wikipedia's rules, and I hope the editor(s) responsible will be tackled and prevented from abusing their position as editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.230.223 (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Please specify what exactly you consider a problem on the page. I did a little clean up on the page. Removed unsourced quotes and controversial statements. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed everything cited to a court case per WP:BLPPRIMARY and virtually all of it was negative. I also removed comments that reflected negative information about a school as if it reflected on the subject. --DHeyward (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Mike Bingham

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Today I discovered libelous information posted about myself attacking my professional reputation. This libelous information has caused some sponsors of my work to withdraw financial support. I have copies of the libelous material that was posted and the damage is already done. I made a complaint and the page was modified to remove the libelous information, but the page still contains factual errors. I therefore corrected these errors, but almost immediately the corrections that I made were reversed by "EvergreenFir", so these factual errors are again posted, damaging my reputation. It is clear that people editing this page are politically motivated and are deliberately seeking to damage my work with misleading information. For example: 1) The article states "Bingham qualified as a biological surveyor though the Open University" which is untrue. I did indeed study through the Open University as an under-graduate, but I later obtained my post-graduate Biological Surveying qualification at Otley College in Ipswich, Suffolk, UK. Why not contact them and ask them? The Open University doesn't even have a Biological Surveying course. Why did the Wikipedia editor not check the facts before writing something that was untrue, and then delete my correction? 2) I left the Falklands in February 2004 not in 2003. I can provide proof if needed, Why does the Wikipedia editor insist on deleting the correct date and putting an earlier incorrect date without first checking the facts? 3) The article mentions that I took the Falkland Islands Government to the Supreme Court, but fails to mention that I won the case, a fact which was previously cited on the page. When I edited the page to add that I won the case, that fact was immediately deleted again by EvergreenFir. Why does a Wikipedia editor not want people to know that I won the Supreme Court case? 4) On two occasions the article rambles on about how I was given 'permission' and 'leave' to pursue my research whilst working at the power station. What possible relevance does that have to the article? It is also untrue. Months before being employed at the power station I set up the Environmental Research Unit as a limited company, with the Falkland Islands Governments written authorisation. My subsequent research work was therefore clearly being done under the auspices of the Environmental Research Unit, and not in my capacity as a power station worker. Since my research unit was up and running with written government authorisation prior to my employment at the power station, clearly no 'permission' or 'leave' was needed. The statement is not only untrue, but totally irrelevant. 5) It mentions that I set up Chile's first long-term penguin monitoring programme in 1997, but deleted the reference to the fact that I also conducted a census of penguin populations in Chile and Argentina in 1997, to verify that the penguin decline was only occurring in the Falkland Islands. This is a fact that is confirmed in three of the cited publications, and is very relevant in showing that penguins in Argentina and Chile are not declining. When I added that fact it was deleted again. Only the Falklands would wish to hide the fact that penguin populations in Argentina and Chile are protected and healthy. 6) To provide supporting documentation, I added that my work has featured on TV documentaries by Paramount Pictures USA (1999), the BBC (2009), Mare TV in Germany (2006) and Argentine TV (2007). These TV documentaries are all on You Tube if anyone doubts the truth. The BBC is stated in the Wikipedia guidelines as being an acceptable supporting citacion. Finally, I am not looking to write my own page, but I have already been slandered on this page by a couple of your editors. I have almost 2 million followers on my web sites, and I rely 100% on these supporters to fund penguin research throughout Chile and Argentina via a penguin adoption programme. It is not right that this penguin research suffers a financial loss because of viscious libelous remarks and false information by editors that have a political Falkland Islands agenda. Impartial editors can easily research what I do from independent sources such as peer-reviewed scientific publications, TV and newspaper articles, and other publicly available material, in order to provide a truthful summary of my work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.230.223 (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Bingham: The specific editor you are currently complaining about, EvergreenFir (talk · contribs), does not appear to have a political motivation. In fact, most of the work that editor has done on your page was deleting the sort of material that you posted concern about earlier. The reason that editor gave for undoing your edits - and I see no reason to doubt it - is because we discourage people from editing articles about themselves, per our guidelines on conflict of interest. I recommend you post your specific suggestions on the article's talk page. That way, some other editor can review your suggestions and add the material that is appropriate and appropriately sourced. --Nat Gertler (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

When I first found this article it entirely self-promotional and included unfounded allegations made on WP:SPS websites. It had carried a [[WP:NPOV]] tag since 2012. The only none WP:SPS source I found was the court judgement from the judicial review and I was unaware of WP:BLPPRIMARY. After talking to DHeyward I have reviewed and identified everything sourced to the case and if it were all removed it would leave nothing behind. Hence, I've WP:PROD'd the article.

Its worth noting, as I note in the deletion notice, the article was originally written solely by Doctorpleiades, who did nothing else but write the original article [19] and upload pictures of Mr Bingham to commons see [20] and [21]. It seems fairly clear there was a WP:COI in the drafting of the original by someone with a close personal relationship to the subject and sharing their views. Some of the information Mr Bingham is complaining about originated from that draft. WCM_email 17:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you NatGertler for replying to the OP. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Another ANI post

This is the third time that I have requested removal of incorrect information attacking my work, my education and my personal reputation. Wikipedia has failed to do so and is clearly incapable of preventing politically biased editors such as Wee Curry Monster from posting false information about me and my work for political motives. I request that Wikipedia delete this article immediately and block further comments about me and my work. I also want the identity of the person who made these libelous remarks so that I can take legal action against them for financial damages. The editor responsible is clearly a Falkland Islands official. Only a Falkland Islands official would have access to the confidential government documents posted by Wee Curry Monster, and I have the backing of the Argentine government in taking action against the Falkland Islands officials responsible for this politically motivated attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.230.223 (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the very editor you're complaining about had already moved for the article to be deleted before you posted this request. Wikipedia does not give out its editor's identities at someone's request. As for the legal threat you made here, I suggest you review our policy on making user threats against editors and recant your threat if you wish to be allowed to continue posting here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Court judgements are public domain, the full judgement in this case was published - see [22]. The allegation I am being fed "confidential" documents by a Falklands official is completely untrue. I have reported this threat of legal action to WP:ANI per WP:NLT and as I note there I have no objection as principal author to this article being permanently deleted. WCM_email 21:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@190.178.230.223: Stop making personal attacks against users please. Again, if there's something in particular you wish to have changed on the article, make a request on the article's talk page. Stop with the nonsensical accusations and conspiracy theories. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tony Hall, Baron Hall of Birkenhead

• Tony Hall, Baron Hall of Birkenhead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A few more eyes looking at that article would be appreciated. There are persistent BLP infringements - untrue and/or highly partial claims - falling just this side of vandalism. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Kenny Laguna

• Kenny Laguna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could someone look at whether some WP:REVDEL of previous edits is necessary on both the article and talk page? The actual birth date of this person is known from primary sources. Some of the previous text versions and talk page versions refer to that date. In the past, IPs - presumably closely linked to the article subject, though that is unconfirmed - have sought to include other, false, birth years. Most reliable sources that I have seen give no year of birth - though some do, giving different dates - and nor does the current version of the article. But, the anonymous IPs (for instance here) are still seeking to remove any discussion of the question. So, that information may need to be excised from records of the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that this falls under WP:OVERSIGHT, certainly not under revdel. Although I agree that primary sources should not be used at all, obviously. If we don't have a reliable source for the DOB then there should be no DOB. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

David Premack

David Premack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

David Premack died june 2015 [23]. Who could help with the sources--Pbk (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

There don't seem to be any further sources - and it would clearly be inappropriate to rely on a Twitter posting, even from Steven Pinker. Given the date (12 June), and the fact that there have been no further reports, I wonder if it was an error? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• there is an article in Polish [24] about his death, but without the daily date of the death--Pbk (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Distinction between presuming a murder and presuming a murderer?

A bit of a hubbub today on 2012 Aurora shooting ("Murder?" talk section) and Charleston church shooting ("Categories" talk). Some people want to categorize it as murder, reasoning that calling it such before the trials are over doesn't equal saying the defendants are murderers, so doesn't violate WP:BLPCRIME.

I think it does, because both defendants have admitted the killing. In the Aurora case, he's going with the insanity defense, and the Charleston one is uncertain. If either convinces a court with their excuse, it's not murder. Just homicide. Can't have a murder without a murderer.

What do you think? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:29, July 6, 2015 (UTC)

A person should not be described as a murderer in a BLP article, or categories for murder added, unless they have been convicted of murder in a court of law.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Presumably BLP does not apply in cases of Murder–suicide? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT (a subsection of WP:BLP) covers this:

Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal.

— WP:BLPCAT

It really couldn't be any clearer. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is far from clear to me. How does that deal with cases where the suspect is dead? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Both of the articles originally linked to deal with cases where the suspect(s) are alive unless I've missed something. FYI: WP:BLP applies to dead individuals as well, but I'm not interested in arguing a straw man. If you're interested, this topic is covered somewhat at WP:BDP (again, a sub-section of WP:BLP). —Locke Cole • t • c 12:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't attempting to present a "straw man", I was seeking clarification on the comment by User:ianmacm. That rule seemed too strict. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree this is a different case than the articles currently being discussed, but in any event in which the suspect is recently deceased, WP:BDP still applies. On the other hand, if the suspect is dead there will be no trial, so some other event besides a conviction would need to be used to trigger dropping the use of "alleged". Maybe the police investigation being closed? VQuakr (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

There are many similar articles filed under the same categories. Ken Harris (politician), Dolla (rapper), Richmond Hill explosion, Murders of Lucia and Leo Krim, 2012 Ingleside, San Francisco homicide, and many, MANY more to count. Yet every time I did something to reflect this decision, it's been undone. DisuseKid (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The trial of James Holmes for the Aurora shooting is ongoing and no verdict has been reached or sentence has been passed. It gives the impression that Holmes is a convicted murderer when he is not.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The same goes with all of those other trials for the articles I just mentioned and all the others not mentioned, though. DisuseKid (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Two wrongs make a right now? Just because you find other articles erroneously categorized doesn't mean this one should be too. Policy is clear here regarding WP:BLP articles: we must tread extremely carefully. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Oddly enough, that phrase is why we're talking about Charleston and Aurora today. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:29, July 6, 2015 (UTC)

And now I've fixed four of the five "others" linked above. That Krim one looks like a lot of work. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:39, July 6, 2015 (UTC)

There is a school of thought which says that nobody looks at the categories anyway (I rarely do). However, in this case, all we need do is to wait until Holmes is convicted for murder over the 2012 Aurora shooting, then add the categories. This would comply with WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPCAT.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

These are articles about events, not people. They would be categorized as murder even if there was no suspect. VQuakr (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

And these events have living people listed as suspects. Categorizing them as murders implies that the listed suspects are murderers. The word you should probably be using until a court decision has been made (and any appeals exhausted) is homicide (and Category:Murder is a child of Category:Homicide). —Locke Cole • t • c 17:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree; an event can be a murder (An act of deliberate killing of another being, especially a human) without casting any negative implication on the accused. Maybe there is justification for mass renaming of the subcategories from murder to homicide, though, for clarity of the common vs legal definitions of murder? This thread is being used as justification for mass removal of categories from scores of articles. VQuakr (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Hold on. We need to distinguish between "murder" (description of a death) and "murderer" (description of a person). This is a BLP issue only when we are talking about an accused person - say in a biographical article about the suspect ("murderer" allowed only after conviction), or in an article about an incident or victim when talking about a suspect (we should use "alleged" or "accused"). But in an article about an incident, such as a shooting, or about a victim, categorizing it as murder (or homicide if you prefer) is not a BLP issue; it's factually reporting what the government (coroner or medical examiner) has concluded about the incident. Identification of a death as "murder" is valid even if no suspect has been identified, or is ever identified. It would be ridiculous to say that no matter what the coroner concluded, a death cannot be categorized as murder until someone is convicted of it! And yet that does seem to be the argument being made here.
Meanwhile I notice that User:DisuseKid has been going around removing the category "murder" from dozens of articles about incidents or victims - and deleting it a second time (with the edit summary "mass removal") when it is restored. DisuseKid, I believe this is inappropriate, since you do not have consensus to do this. You mentioned a "decision" above, but no decision has been reached, except for biographical articles about the suspect; there is general agreement that we can't categorize a biographical article about a suspect under "Caregory:murderers" until they are convicted. But there is no consensus that an article about a crime or a victim can't be categorized as "Category:murders" or "Category:People murdered". I think you should stop this mass deletion, not keep re-deleting (you don't want to get into an edit war), and wait to see if consensus to remove them is developed here.--MelanieN (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you have written. My concern is that an article, about either a death event or an alleged perpetrator, should refrain from using the term "murder" while the matter is still before the courts. Such labeling is potentially prejudicial and a breach of BLP. It is not always necessary to obtain a conviction in order to use the term "murder". There is no doubt that John F. Kennedy was murdered (assassinated) although no-one was ever convicted of that crime. There was, instead, a judicial finding of murder. Accused persons such as Dylann Roof, James Eagan Holmes and Yoselyn Ortega are entitled to a presumption of innocence without the world's largest encyclopedia prematurely labeling their action as murder. WWGB (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I put up examples of such articles and the categories were removed from them. That was enough consensus for me. Talk to InedibleHulk about that part. DisuseKid (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see that Inedible Hulk has also been aggressively removing "murder" categories from articles about victims or incidents. Hulk, removing these categories is your opinion but does not yet have consensus here - and this is the BLP board so this is the place to get consensus. BTW if none of these things should be categorized under "murders", how do you think we should categorize homicides where no-one has yet been convicted? The "Category:Homicide" is about the legal term, not about specific incidents. Should we start some kind of new category, and what should it be called? Or do we just leave articles about violent death uncategorized, as you have them now? --MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

In the case of Dolla, we could categorize it as self-defense. That one's been through the courts, and buddy was acquitted. For those yet to be tried, "homicide" categories could work. I jumped the gun a bit on removing those cats, but consensus was at least temporarily leaning that way. I've no problem waiting, but the guy who didn't murder Dolla might want that insinuation gone sooner. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:35, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

I've re-removed them from Dolla, but left the rest for now. He's a different case. The only suspect and admitted shooter was acquitted. Per double jeopardy, he won't be tried. The official ruling of "no murder" isn't just possible here, it's been made. This one has nothing to do with presuming innocence. It's just plain wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

Also, a little heads up, unwarranted efforts were made to rename and tweak the Murders of Lucia and Leo Krim article by WWGB in addition to removing the categories, despite a consensus not being reached yet. A rectification is in order until the official decision is made, but I am unable to do so. DisuseKid (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

WWGB moved it to "Stabbing of..." which was not a good title. It is now at "Killing of..." which is is probably an acceptable title, and the redirect from "Murder of..." remains. So I personally don't think this is in need of urgent reversion, but anyone else who does think it should be reverted, please go ahead. However, a comment to User:WWGB: as with the others I have spoken to, please do not go around imposing this kind of change when consensus has not been reached. And please refrain from using inflammatory edit summaries such as "disgraceful breach of BLP to describe this incident as murder when no trial has been conducted". This issue is still under discussion, and there are many people here who do not feel that this kind of long-standing categorization represents a "disgraceful breach of BLP". --MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. DisuseKid (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. This is a discussion page and nothing here has been "decided" yet. At the very least, a correct course of action is needed if the decision is to remove the category from these pages. For example, it's far easier to curate a list of pages in Category:Murders and re-categorize them into another appropriate category (Category:Homicide for example) than it is to not have that list to begin with because you removed the categories completely. When there's a consensus here then action can be taken. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Locke, I see that you have restored most of the categories. Thank you for that; I think that is appropriate pending the outcome of this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Article title describes it as mass shooting, referring to it as murder is unnecessary. Label may change pending outcome of trial. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The label doesn't need to be changed. It is what it is, a mass shooting... DisuseKid (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The argument here isn't what to call the article ("shooting" is fine). It's what categories the article should be placed in. --MelanieN (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a homicide. It isn't a "murder" until a jury finds it so. Not all homicides are crimes and until there is a verdict, it's not a murder. --DHeyward (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Then we will have to completely overhaul our categories in this area. We currently have no place other than "murder" to categorize incidents and deaths that are called murder by the authorities, but have not resulted in a murder conviction. I trust you all do realize that you are talking about re-categorizing thousands of articles, most of which have been stable for years. This is not something that can be done by half a dozen people at a noticeboard. It would require at the least a well-publicized RfC. --MelanieN (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, hence people's problems with it. DisuseKid (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

To see the scope of the problem, as well as its logical and logistical difficulties: take for example the category "unsolved murders", one of the smaller "murder" categories. This category has 50 subcategories holding about 700 pages. None of these cases have resulted in a conviction, so by the argument presented here they should all be retitled something else. But why? They are not violating BLP since there is no suspect. --MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Exactly! There are just as much problems with this proposed massive rehaul as there are so-called benefits. It's completely unprecedented! DisuseKid (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't care about those with no suspects, or dead suspects. Nobody's reputation is at stake. It may still be inaccurate, but not harmful. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: but the problem with that is that an article about an event, with a category describing the event, becomes inappropriate if and when a suspect is named. To me, we should either select a category name that describes the event and does not need to be updated to avoid a BLP issue as the case develops, or recognize that these categories do indeed describe the event and that there is no BLP violation. VQuakr (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

If a suspect comes up, we could delete it then. Or before. It's just not as important when there's nobody to blame. Same goes for anonymous killers/composites with nicknames. No harm in categorizing The Zodiac Killer as a murderer. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:33, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

But Wikipedia's an encyclopedia. Shouldn't it be accurate, first and foremost? DisuseKid (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly. verifiability trumps truth. But if what's verifiable and what's true match up (and they often do), it's a win-win. Before a killing becomes a murder, it needs to go through the courts, to make sure it wasn't justifiable or excusable. Then a reliable source picks up the verdict, and we reflect it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:39, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

Whatever. I wish to wait till a consensus is made before we take care of the editing process. DisuseKid (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

We already have a category Category:Deaths by person which includes articles like Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Articles that are categorized as unsolved murders that reflect negatively on a living person should be recategorized as "Deaths by person". Cases that are very old or have no suspects or don't reflect on a living person, it doesn't matter. The proper response to BLP problems with a category isn't "it's too big a problem." That leaves the door open for simply removing the articles from that BLP violating category. --DHeyward (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

We're still talking about way too many articles, though. If not removing, then changing categories will still pose a problem. I would also like to bring into the discussion incidents where suspects have died in the commission of a crime without being confirmed as the actual perpetrators. The kidnapping of Hannah Anderson article comes to mind; DiMaggio is still considered a suspect in the murders and abduction despite his death at the hands of police. Yet, the article is still filed under the aforementioned categories. No doubt there are others like it as well. What of those? DisuseKid (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Why are we talking-up changes to "thousands of articles"? This issue was raised about articles concerning homicides and individuals who are currently before the courts. Some editors want to categorise an article as "murder" when it happened yesterday. We just need less haste and some common sense when it comes to BLP. WWGB (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

That was a bit of an exaggeration (I do not know the actual number), but I am confident there are many such articles to consider, as well as the articles I mentioned above. We still have ongoing trials that go as far back as 2012 (and I'm not talking about Aurora) as far as I know. DisuseKid (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia recently switched over to lowercase common animal names (grey fox, not Grey Fox). That change affected thousands, or tens of thousands. But it got done. Plenty of editors, plenty of time. Script bots often help. This is nothing compared to that, as far as a workload. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:39, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

If we were to agree that "murder" is poor word choice for the category because of its two common, distinct definitions, it would not be particularly difficult to rename the categories. That is done routinely and there are semi-automated tools to get through thousands of articles in a sitting. So, RfC? CfD? how do we want to go about getting enough input that what ever consensus we reach will stick through the renaming of or removal of categories from a large number of pages? VQuakr (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I would lean towards an RFC (with notices posted in the appropriate discussion pages (VP, BLP, centralized discussions template, etc) to solicit opinions). I don't think CFD is geared towards these kinds of broad changes. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

In kidnapping of Hannah Anderson, the suspect is dead. I am not too concerned about labeling the dead. It's living subjects that face trial. It would have been a mistake and BLP violation to list Trayvon Martin as a murder victim or in a murder category. We face the same problem with other articles. --DHeyward (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

At the very least, it is problematic to have murder categories in a BLP article when a trial is ongoing or has yet to take place. In some jurisdictions, the defendant may be acquitted of murder but be convicted of manslaughter. WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPCAT both recognize this problem.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: it is strange to refer to these articles about events as "BLP articles". They are only BLP articles in the sense that WP:BLP still applies, and in that sense all articles are BLP articles. If the accused were found guilty of manslaughter, the event would still be a murder. See my post above. VQuakr (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Manslaughter generally isn't deliberate killing. Even the voluntary kind is usually just deliberate hurting gone too far. If a court finds a killer guilty of manslaughter, the event becomes a manslaughter (legally) and a homicide (generally).

Not all articles are BLPs. No people in blood urea nitrogen. But yes, many are. And it is problematic to have murder categories in any of them, when a trial hasn't finished. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:27, July 8, 2015 (UTC)

Tim Loughton

Please see the editing history of this article, this is subject to potential edit warring, one editor is now asserting they must be contacted before certain edits can be made, seen here. This violates ownership rules. Another regular IP editor is again calling cited information 'fucking lies" making threats this time of a legal nature to "sue" as can be seen here. Please can his be investigated and dealt with. Sport and politics (talk) 09:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

If you read the whole edit summary it from Black Kite it talks about BLP violation. You don't restore what is claimed to be a BLP violation without discussing it first. I have removed the material again. Please either discuss here or on the article talk page. -- GB fan 12:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I have read the material in question and do not believe that it belongs in the article. Loughton was neither charged nor convicted of anything, and the end, this is nothing more that a politcian's angry response to harassment by a constituent. In other words, a triviality, and including it (though well sourced) would give the matter undue weight in this biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

What needs to be seen here is that an elected member of parliament was interviewed under caution, issued a harassment notice, the police were summoned to parliament, the police were found to have broken the law, the police were forced to apologies to Loughton for a breach of the parliamentary papers act and denied any wrongdoing throughout. The I.P. editor is the constituent involved with Loughton in the dispute and is in my opinion attempting to censor the information from Wikipedia. While Loughton was not charged, the police were found to have broken the law in relation to their actions against Loughton. The section is about Loughton and the police more than Loughton and the rude constituent. Also for any editor to say "i have a veto over other peoples edits" is not on as that is a violation of WP:OWN and goes contrary to WP:Consensus. 18:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The BLP claim is a very flimsy claim and incredibly trivial, Black Kite has made no attempt to explain the supposed and claimed BLP violation, they were in my opinion simply hiding behind it to remove the information and not be challenged. Last time I looked Undue weight needed to be explained and was not n the same category s something like Defamatory comments, which can be removed immediately..Sport and politics (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

List of teenage princes and princesses

List of teenage princes and princesses. I'm not sure if this really violates BLP policy, but it struck me as, at least, being in bad taste to have a list of 13 to 19 year-olds like this. It's up for deletion. Borock (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It has already been deleted, but not on BLP grounds. Borock (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Brad Schreiber

Brad Schreibers Article is clearly an Autobiography, full on libelous and on top of the general lack of sources, the ones mentioned do not work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.17.29.50 (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Nina Hagen

There have been a number of minor not-notable or unsourced edits on Hagen's page today (6 July). If poss. could someone take a look as it seems to me that some or all could or should be removed. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Reverted as unsourced - relationship stuff in particular must have references.--ukexpat (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeffrey Elman biography

Jeffrey Elman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am the subject of this page (Jeffrey Elman biography). For several years, there was a back-and-forth debate about material that was included in this page that I felt was poorly sourced, contentious, and in many cases factually wrong.

The issue was, I thought, resolved and the disputatious material was removed in the Fall of 2014. My understanding was that a number of Wikipedia editors agreed this was the right thing to do.

However, user Nomoskedasticity on 5 July 2015 reverted back to an earlier version. I would like to ask that this material be removed, once again, and that my page be frozen. The alternative would be for me to include additional information and correct assertions that are incorrect. This will have the unfortunate result of turning this page into a debate. And in that case, I would ask that the page be removed entirely.

Can you advise me on how best to proceed? The documentation regarding all of this can be found on the associated Talk page so I won't repeat it here. But I would be happy to amplify and provide more information if that would be helpful. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kk1892 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kk1892: If you haven't already, please read WP:COI - if you are, or have a close relationship with the subject of the article (which I think is what you've suggested above) then you really should not be editing the article directly, as you did quite recently. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is the previous BLPN discussion. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kk1892:, assuming that this is the edit you're suggesting is problematic, can you specify what exactly is inaccurate or inappropriate about it? The sources given ([25][26]) both appear to be reliable sources, and to back up what Nomoskedasticity added to the article. It would be helpful if you could clarify what the issues with these sources is. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to provide more details, although I will not refer to individuals by name. Much of what I will say is also found in the earlier history in my talk section.

The incident that is reported involved a professor (A) who came to me complaining about harassment from a colleague (B). Professor A felt he was being defamed by B, and this claim was substantiated by Professor A's department chair. I consulted the Executive Vice Chancellor at the time, who advised me that I should warn Professor B that he Professor A felt he was being defamatory and that Professor B was creating a hostile work environment. Professor B reacted by claiming he was being "muzzled." He took his complaint to a committee of the Academic Senate. That (three person) committee did not do an investigation but did in fact conclude that I had no right to do anything that might impede Professor B's freedom of speech. The committee took it to the larger Academic Senate and presented a resolution -- without naming names or giving specifics -- saying that the administration was interfering with faculty freedom of speech. In fact, the Academic Senate late did carry out a formal investigation several years later. Two claims were investigated: infringement of Academic Freedom and a claim of retaliation under Whistleblower laws. Grievances were against 5 individuals (the current Provost, prior Provost, Vice Chancellor for Research, Chair of Sociology Department, and myself. The Academic Senate concluded there was no evidence of retaliation and dismissed that grievance. The claim of infringement of Academic Freedom was subsequently withdrawn by Professor B and the matter has been concluded. I can produce the legal documents, but there was no press announcement to this effect and so there is no public sourcing available. Note that the news article in the SD Union Tribute was hastily written, incorrectly named me as the guilty party (when in fact the Senate's initial action did not name me or any specific individual, and did not involve any attempt to verify the facts by contacting anyone in the administration.

Subsequently, the San Diego Reader (frankly, not a reliable source) requested email from the campus relating to the hiring of Nathan Fletcher (a former Assemblyman who had been hired by the Political Science Department as a Professor of Practice) and discovered an email from me to my Assistant Dean in which I jokingly used the term "money laundering." Fletcher had been paid incorrectly on a fund that was not the right one, and when I discovered this I told my Assistant Dean that we would need to move the expense to a legitimate fund source. I joked that we were money laundering, though in fact, we were correcting an earlier error. (So much for email jokes.) The Reader reported this, out of context and leaving out the salient fact that the joke was made in order to fix a prior error. Later, when I decided to step down as Dean after 8 years (I had planned to serve for only 5 years but was persuaded to stay on for 3 more), they reported that a "Dean in money laundering scandal" was forced to resign. There was no scandal, apart from the one article the Reader published in their attempt to create one. A few days ago, I noticed that this was being used as the source for my stepping down as Dean, so I replaced it with an authoritative source, viz., the public announcement from the University.

All of these facts have been previously aired in the Talks page and that the consensus from prior editors is that the disputatious material should be removed. Failing that, I suppose I could ask that a summary of the above should be included in the entry. But this would significantly distort the balance of material in the biography. More importantly, the bottom line will be that all claims regarding infringement of academic freedom and whistleblowing retaliation have been rejected by subsequent investigations and then finally withdrawn by Professor B. The more appropriate outcome will be to restore the page to its state as of 5 July 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kk1892 (talk • contribs)

https://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B4%AC%E0%B5%8B%E0%B4%AC%E0%B4%BF_%E0%B4%9A%E0%B5%86%E0%B4%AE%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%AE%E0%B4%A3%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%A3%E0%B5%82%E0%B5%BC

ബോബി_ചെമ്മണ്ണൂർ This article is spreading wrong news especially rumours from local newspaper as reference. This is creating wrong image about Boby Chemmanur in online world. Please remove as soon as possible. www.bobychemmanur.com https://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B4%AC%E0%B5%8B%E0%B4%AC%E0%B4%BF_%E0%B4%9A%E0%B5%86%E0%B4%AE%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%AE%E0%B4%A3%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%A3%E0%B5%82%E0%B5%BC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binojk123 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Binojk123: - this appears to be outside the scope of en.wikipedia.org. --DHeyward (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Valson Thampu

Valson Thampu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) To whomsoever it may concern,

On reading the biographical article on this person, any simpleton can note that the criticism section on the article is an attack one. It avoids entirely being neutral'.The edit neither stands the verifiability test and borders on No Original Research being done. If it is then it fails to mention the needed references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:e60:7000:100:7::1 (talk • contribs)

I've removed the content for now - source was very dodgy. It's been added and removed before so it wouldn't hurt to have a few more people watching the page. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Currently romoured

It appears that the British 2015 Dissolution Honours has not happened but the article gives a list of those "currently rumoured" to be in line for an honour. Attempts to remove the list of rumoured names as speculation and probably gainst WP:BLP has been reverted twice, once as being vandalism and the other because cited rumours are legitimate and not speculation. Looking for opinion on if these "currently rumoured" lists are not some sort of BLP issue, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Sloane Stevens - Personal area paragraph 2, last sentence vulgar entry

Personal area paragraph 2, last sentence has vulgar entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.91.80 (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, somebody has removed it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

John Lynch

Re information about John Lynch, Actor, from Northern Ireland. Just after seeing his film "Holy Water" on television and this is not mentioned in his credits on your Wikipedia site. His sister Susan Lynch was also in this film and has it notated in her body of work. Please rectify. (P.S. Good film!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.156.183 (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Rick Ross (consultant)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Ross_(consultant)

The criminal record included in this bio is incomplete and misleading. It requires editing to reflect the complete recoerd 1974-1983. The criminal record was not robbery and the subsequent expungement of the criminal record by court order is not included.

This portion of the bio should correctly read as follows:

In 1974 at the age of 21, Ross was arrested for the attempted burglary of a vacant model home, but later pleaded guilty to misdemeanor trespassing. He was sentenced to probation. The next year Ross was convicted for the felony conspiracy to commit grand theft.[1] He again plead guilty, made full restitution and received probation, which was ended early for good conduct in 1979. Arizona Superior Court later dismissed all charges, expunged Ross' criminal record and restored his civil rights in 1983.[2]

The word "expunged" can be linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expungement_in_the_United_States

PDF documents are online from the probation department and court.

See http://www.culteducation.com/group/1284-scientology/23617-rick-ross-termination-of-probation-.html

Also see http://www.culteducation.com/group/1284-scientology/23616-rick-ross-application-for-restoration-of-civil-rights-.html

Full restitution reported by Tony Ortega in Phoenix New Times article.

See http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/hush-hush-sweet-charlatans-6426159

The criminal record cannot fairly and objectively be reported by selectively choosing some information and excluding other information. The complete record should be reported from 1974 through 1983. The description " robbed a jewelry store" has a range of meaning that includes a violent crime. There was no violent crime committed and no violent crime could be expunged. The crime was "conspiracy to commit grand theft' not robbery. And the guilty verdicts were vacated in 1983.

Please confirm the edit.

Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)